A rebuttal to JEP propaganda 2 Re: the Electoral Commission meeting

It appears that I may be starting up an irregular series of blog posts essentially disseminating individual articles in the Jersey Evening Post. It's no secret here that I'm not a fan of the Jersey Evening Post (but then again, I'm not a fan of any printed newspaper to be honest) because I regularly attend events, meet people, listen to the States etc and then end up reading an article in the paper about it that doesn't even vaguely come close to what I witnessed.

It ranges from silly little things like seeing JEP journalists on twitter, tweeting the exact opposite of what has just happened in the States, to opinion articles like the one I tackled here which were based on things that were just plain untrue (in that case that Senator Bailhache had leaked details of the Electoral Commissions report to him). Call it conspiracy, call it just laziness, whatever it is, it's incredibly annoying.

Thankfully there are lots of good Jersey blogs out there (some partisan, some balanced) that often do a very good job at countering this and putting forward another way of looking at things or doing full reports on events that are often far more comprehensive and reliable than the JEP.

So today I'd like to draw the readers attention to this article here - http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/2012/11/15/states-reform-meeting-ends-in-farce/

It's a report from the Electoral Commissions public meeting at Grouville. It starts out by naming and shaming someone for launching an anti-immigrant tirade against the Vice-chair Colin Storm, on the basis that his views were irrelevant because he is not a proper Jersey person. His definition of "Jersey person" being one that was not only born in the island (as Storm was) but had Jersey roots too. So I suppose I'm not a real Jersey person either given that my roots are Breton.

Some might say it was irresponsible to actually name the person, but I find myself actually quite glad. Simply because I think bigoted views like those that this man was expressing need to be attacked as being unacceptable. I think racism needs to be challenged for it to be overcome, not just ignored out of politeness.

What is either funny or sad (can't make up my mind which) is seeing the people queuing up on the JEPs website to celebrate his petulant contribution. He called Mr Storm an "immigrant" even though he was born in Jersey. I wonder if these people realise how ridiculous they look.

But anyway, the part of the article I wish to focus on is this bit -

"The heated meeting was also effectively hijacked at a number of points by two failed Senatorial candidates and St Helier residents, Nick Le Cornu and Gino Risoli, who gave long-winded speeches that led to several people walking out."

This is a typical case of JEP bias.

Firstly, the fact they are both failed Senatorial candidates is not relevant to anything. In a democracy every single person is entitled to hold views and to express them (even the bigoted views the JEP reported on). The fact those people have not been elected before is not a reason to belittle them and make it out that somehow their views are not important because of their past failures.

In fact, Winston Churchill, the greatest Prime Minister we have ever had (and I have no problem as a Socialist saying that), failed on several occasions to get elected as an MP. He failed in by-elections in 1899 and 1908. He lost his seat in the October 1922 general election where he famously said that he left Dundee "without an office, without a seat, without a party and without an appendix". He then lost again in the 1923 general election and another by-election in 1924. Though he kept his seat, as leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister he lost the 1945 general election in the biggest landslide of British parliamentary history.

My point is that failing to win an election does not de-legitimise someone. Why did the JEP choose to describe them as that? Would it not have been better to say "local businessman" and "local social justice and human rights campaigner"?

How about also pointing out they are St Helier residents? How is that relevant either? It was not a Grouville Parish Assembly, it was an Electoral Commission meeting. The Electoral Commission is holding these meetings to find out more views from the public about their report. If people from outside the Parish wish to go and speak, the meetings chairperson has the discretion of whether the person speaking is offering something they find useful to hear. I attended three meetings, none of which were in my Parish, and was allowed to speak at all of them (and even being quoted in the JEP, though it didn't make a point of me not being a Parishioner!), presumably because the commission thought there was some value in letting me put my views across because it was more that they could take into account when they come up with their final report.

But the worst part is them using the phrase "effectively hijacked". I think it can be objectively decided if a meeting was hijacked or not. The best way to work that out would be to ask the chairperson, who has the responsibility to make sure the meeting stays on topic, and can judge if individuals did their best to take it in another direction. But using the word "effectively" makes it subjective, and when reporting the news being subjective like that isn't really appropriate.

Gino (whom I have no personal problems with, he is a nice guy) attended the St Helier meeting I was at and started banging on about "financial accountability" in States departments and gave a passionate speech on it. But he had to be stopped by the vice-chair (which he did his best to ignore and carry on, under the guise of "freedom of speech") because what he was talking about was totally irrelevant to what the meeting was about. I think this could objectively be called hijacking. It was irrelevant and he refused to be silenced by the chair. If he did the same at the Grouville meeting, then the JEP was probably right to have said he tried to hijack it.

However Nick Le Cornu, on the other hand, has been to many of the meetings and actually made excellent contributions that the commission were evidently interested to hear. His submission to the commission (which can be read here) is one of, if not the, best one they received. His speeches are well thought out, relevant, often cover things that other people have not thought of and he uses historical and legal examples to back up what he is saying. The only criticism that could be made of him is that his speeches are often very long, but when he is asked to sum up, he does so. Whether you agree or disagree with Nicks politics, you cannot deny that he makes very important contributions to public debate that are certainly worth hearing.

To put Nick's contributions on the same page as Gino's is just frankly ridiculous. Turning up to a meeting to make a speech concisely on the topic in question cannot under any stretch of the English language be called "hijacking".

But there was an example of hijacking that the JEP didn't cover. At the St Peters meeting, the meeting was hijacked by the Constable, who ran the meeting as if it were a Parish meeting (which it isn't) and then proceeded to try and decide who could and couldn't speak, and even went up to the podium to deliver his views at the end of the meeting. At an Electoral Commission meeting, the Constable is just an ordinary member of the public like anyone else and should act like it. How he took control of that meeting was well out of order (though some blame must lie with the commission for not having the backbone to steer the meeting back to how it should be). But the JEP did not report a word of it. In fact we only know it happened because of Nick Le Cornu's blog on it!

I could also mention how the commission itself was hijacked by States Members after it was originally going to be totally independent, but that would just be repeating myself. But no mention in the JEP of that either.

This whole reform debate is going to lead to a referendum, and with a referendum you need a proper public debate and proper media coverage allowing the public to accurately hear both sides in a balanced way. Little things like the JEPs attempt to belittle Nick Le Cornu go completely against the spirit of a democratic debate.

We need and deserve better than this. Rest assured, as the debate goes on, I'll be doing my bit to hold them to account.


Cheers,
Sam

P.S. My Electoral Commission submission will be posted in a few days. It's taking longer than I thought it would because I'm being fairly comprehensive (about 8 pages so far) and using charts and calculations to back my points up.

Making a bad situation worse for student funding in Jersey

I came back to Jersey for a few days this week to attend some of the public meetings with the Electoral Commission as well as an interview with Channel TV (which I'm working on trying to upload to the "interviews/ media" page). Since when I'm normally in Jersey the States is in recess, I though I'd pop in on Tuesday just to see if any drama kicked off. The session was reasonably tame, though I ended up having to listen in horror to an unexpected statement by the Education Minister Deputy Ryan and his plans to butcher the university grants system then followed by a not terribly impressive defence of the statement under questioning by his fellow States Members.

The statement can be read here - http://www.gov.je/News/2012/Pages/ChangesStudentGrants.aspx

The basic gist is that, unlike the current system, when a single parent cohabits with a new partner, that partners income will now be treated as a part of the gross household income for the purposes of working out how much of a grant the student gets. Account will also be taken of maintenance paid in or out.

Of course I should start by declaring an interest in this subject. I am the recipient of a student grant and I am from a single parent household. The majority of my university fees are paid by the States (though not all of it) and I am given around £4,500 a year for living costs (which in central London does not get me very far). The rest of my funding comes from the work I do in my holidays, the odd jobs I can get here and there during term, the generosity of my parents and a substantial amount of debt I am in with two different banks. And I'm one of the relatively lucky ones!

Whenever education funding is brought up, I instinctively get worried for the simple fact that the current system is completely undesirable and is already very unfair and inconsiderate for many people, that any change could well make a bad situation even worse. The problem is almost every households circumstances are completely different, so arbitrary rules across the board inevitably lead to injustice for many people, whether some are given too little or some too much.

These changes, like the previous system, will be no different in that some people will receive a more appropriate amount, and some will receive a less appropriate amount. Some people will say that the changes are entirely fair, on the basis that undoubtedly some families who can pay already but still get grants, will no longer get them. But some families will get less because of an extra person in the family who will now be expected to contribute. I am almost certain that the majority of those that will be worse off are going to be those from poorer families and those from broken families, and I find it reprehensible that these people should be the ones to bear most of the brunt.

Of all the students that go to university from Jersey, 70% of them receive a grant, 38% of them are from households with a single parent. Compared to the rest of the UK, we also send an above average proportion of our young people to university.

One thing that I think is just so insanely illogical is this idea that the grants should be worked out on the households "gross income". That is surely the worst way of working it out. Just because you have a reasonable gross income does not mean you are more able to afford to send your kids to university. It should be measured by "net income". What if as a family you have a reasonable household income, but you may have elderly parents that you have to support, or perhaps even a disable child that might require substantial care. If you have those costs, you might not have enough to send a kid to university.

Or also what about a family that has several children who are ambitious and talented and could make a lot for themselves out of going to university, but the family can't afford for all of them to go. It would be just as unfair to not let any of them go, or to just let 1 or 2 of them go.

But equally there are circumstances where a single parent may have moved in with someone who has a substantial income and doesn't have a problem with contributing, but the current system does not take them into account, so the government is giving more money than they have to for that students grant.

But forget the money for one moment and look at the social impacts. This idea of counting the new partners income can be hugely detrimental to family relationships. Firstly, a lot of step-parents just don't get on with their new partners kids. There's all sorts of reasons for this. Sometimes it's a marriage after the death of the previous partner which some kids find very difficult to accept, or sometimes it's just conflicting personalities. Just because the new partner now lives with them, does not mean that he or she is an active part of that child's life.

Or what about a partner who is relatively new to the family and who does not know that the relationship is destined to be very long term, is now going to have to contribute to the students fees? This would do nothing but add tension to the relationship.

We will end up with a situation where single parents, who may well have gone through a troubling time (a messy divorce, perhaps even domestic abuse, etc all sorts of things), are now having to weigh up the financial implications of starting a new relationship with someone. Their kids will be seen as a liability by potential partners who would not want to be supporting their partners kids right away. The fact it will cost them more to send their kids to university will affect how people form their families and seriously impact on their happiness. Most parents will always choose their kids above their partner, and I would have felt so bad if for example my mother had decided not to have a new partner because she was worried about not being able to help fund me going to university.

Whatever you believe the role of government in our society should be, surely no one believes the government should be doing things that will so blatantly affect personal relationships so badly?

I've spoken to a lot of friends and young people about what they think this means for their circumstances. One friend told me about how his step-father had a real problem with him going to university for some reason. But his mum was adamant that if he wants to go, he should go, so she is even considering selling her house and finding a smaller place to get the money to send him. Why should his step-dad be a part of the equation? He isn't supportive of the idea and should have no right to adversely impact on someone's future who is not his child, yet if the changes go ahead, his income will be counted.

The point I'm really making here is that there is no perfect way of funding students within the current framework. You will always have a system that unfairly perpetuates inequalities and offers help to those that don't need it, whilst leaving out those that do. The only way within this means-testing framework to achieve a fair result across the board is to judge each and every student on a case by case basis taking into account all of their circumstances, but this is just obviously impractical.

So I'm going to suggest something radical that I believe is the only way to fairly fund students. The parents have to be taken out of the equation. When a someone turns 18 years old, they are an adult. They are technically legally independent. So why should their parents income be taken into account? I say, the only person whose income should be judged is the student themselves. If they happen to have a substantial income, or if they inherited some wealth from somewhere, they can and should fund themselves. But for most students, their income is close to nothing so they should be funded 100%.

That is the only way to fairly fund students. But it's radical and it's expensive. Perhaps the answer is that fewer people should be going to university.

For me, because my passion was for law, not going to university was never really an option for me. But that wasn't the case for many people I was at school with. During 6th form when we were being encouraged by the school to apply for university, I felt that many of those that were not going to university or were on the fence about it were sort of being pressured because it was "the thing to do". This attitude has to change. One of the reasons that higher education has become so expensive and governments are less able to fund it is because of the sheer volume of people deciding to go. University should not be considered the zenith of educational opportunities for young people. Some people are just better suited to other ways of taking their life forward. Plenty of my mates who left school at the same time I did to get jobs are doing really well for themselves, some are working in finance, others have apprenticeships etc and that was right for them. The choices they made should not be denigrated over choosing university.


But back to the proposed changes, you have to ask yourself what the actual purpose of them is? Why is the minister doing it?

If you'd seen the report on Channel TV on Wednesday night you would gather that he was just trying to make the system fairer so that the money saved could be "ring fenced" and redistributed to everyone equally. Doesn't sound so bad. But then the next day he was made to apologise because this is not the case at all. The money being saved is going straight back to the treasury. It's a cut.

Quite how he made such a fundamental mistake is beyond me. The whole motivation behind the changes is to implement a cut. That's it pure and simple. The government is wanting to save money, and so as well as not giving people like nurses, teachers and firemen a pay rise, they're also seeking to extract some savings out of students. After three years they will save £500,000 a year. How he can talk about the changes as if they were part of a totally different context with a totally different motivation is disgraceful. I'd call it spin, but it's not, it's just a lie.

That'll be half a million pounds every year that isn't being invested in the future of the island, for a system that is not fairer. This is the real issue here. Students are being made to accept austerity when they, more than any other section of society, are not to blame for the causes that have led to this economic situation.

In the UK when the coalition government decided to scrap the Education Maintenance Allowance and raise university tuition fees, the Nation Union of Students got tens of thousands of students onto the streets to protest against it and make their voices heard. But no such movement exists in Jersey... Yet.

Students (and by extension, their parents) are being asked to accept an unfair and unjustified cut. They are not organised and will have no way that they can have their voices heard in any meaningful sense. They won't be getting in the media to make their case, they won't be attending scrutiny meetings or negotiating with the government. Students in Jersey need a group that will advocate for their interests. They need to organise themselves because together their voices will be strong. They need a Jersey Union of Students to put their case across. The reason that Jerseys government gets away with things like this is because the people aren't willing to stand up to them.

Over the next year Jersey is going to face unrest. We've already seen it with the bus drivers strike and we are soon going to face it with the teachers and nurses going on strike. Students are facing attacks too and need to be part of that struggle.

I'm going to do my best to encourage students in Jersey to make their voices heard and oppose this cut. You should show them solidarity too!


More will follow on from this, I am sure of it.

Sam

The covert campaign has begun

Comrades,

In the next few days I will publish my submission to the Electoral Commission, but in the meantime I want to urge you all to get in contact with them yourselves.

They are accepting new submissions on their website until the 23rd November on their interim recommendations. You can write one on their website here, or email one to them at this address - ec@gov.je

They accept all sorts of recommendations, long or short, on all the issues or on just one issue, anything. So don't feel like you shouldn't submit something just because you don't have a huge amount to say or nothing new to contribute.

Even just a short message to say you agree with comments made by another submitter are good and show the commission what people think.

As has been clear by the unexpected contents of their interim report, a positive public lobby can be effective and can make a difference.

I'll be making the points the commission is actually deliberately providing for an opportunity for Jerseys system to become less democratic and is deliberately offering an option for reform that is in direct conflict with their own principles and that they should have the courage of their conviction to fully endorse their proposition of a single class of member in 6 super constituencies.

I'd urge everyone to write a submission to them making these points too. As always, I'm happy to help anyone wanting to do so, just drop me a line at either smezec@hotmail.com or reformjersey@gmail.com.

Further to that, I'd also urge everyone to come to the public meetings scheduled for the next few weeks to air their views directly to the commission and make sure that the meetings aren't dominated by the usual suspects or those with vested interests.

Here is the schedule for the meetings -

Date	Location	Time
Tuesday 6th November	St Brelade’s Parish Hall	7 pm
	St John’s Parish Hall	7 pm
Wednesday 7th November	St Helier Town Hall	7 pm
	Trinity Parish Hall	7 pm
Thursday 8th November	St Martin’s Public Hall	7 pm
	St Clement’s Parish Hall	7 pm
Tuesday 13th November	St Ouen’s Parish Hall	7 pm
	St Peter’s Parish Hall	7 pm
Wednesday 14th November	Grouville Parish Hall	7 pm
	St Mary’s Parish Hall	7 pm
Thursday 15th November	St Saviour’s Parish Hall	7 pm
	St Lawrence Parish Hall	7 pm

I'm going to be at the meetings in St Brelade, St Helier and either St Clement or St Martin. So feel free to approach me for a chat there.

Those that care about democracy in Jersey need to realise that the debate is starting now, and the argument is by no means won. All you have to do is check out the letters to the editor in the JEP to see that those against a modern democracy in Jersey are preparing to fight. We've already had really strange letters from Knights and Ladies and those with initials rather than first names. Some decrying the "burden of government " (that's that horrible oppressor that provides us with an education system, police, nurses and those other terrible burdens), Don Filleul saying he supports the commissions recommendations (but with the Constables, which is actually against their recommendations), and the Knight and Lady who don't seem to realise that if their Constable is so wonderful they will certainly not be denied the opportunity to vote for them as a Deputy into the States too.

I don't particularly want to write to the JEP any more, but I'd urge anyone else who wants to put forward our point of view to write to them and make these points.

We also have Senator Farnham, who campaigned against the reduction in the number of Senators, who is now asking for a referendum on the Senators. If we are going to have referenda on the minutia of details on reform (which I am totally against for the reasons I outlined in my previous post), personally I would rather it were on the Senators than the Constables (whom should not even be considered to have a place in the new format of the States), but he let himself down by making a rather ridiculous point that the commission can't possibly consider removing the Senators without consulting the public. This, despite the fact that there has been consultation going on for months now, which he actually took part in! You couldn't make it up.

But most disappointingly we have even had some people, who could otherwise have been allies, determined to cynically stand as a lone voice in opposition to virtually everything that happens and lie about Reform Jersey. We've even been accused of being a phoney group led by current States Members seeking to conspire to implement a package of reform that's sole purpose is to provide for greater pensions for themselves! I can only imagine what provokes someone to concoct a pack of lies so fanciful as that. I'm 21 years old for goodness sake, what exactly do I stand to gain from being a puppet like that?

Finally, I just want to point out the new tab at the top of this page linking to an archive I'm trying to compile of various media clips relevant to Reform Jerseys campaign and other things I'm politically involved in.


Cheers everyone, thanks for reading and thanks to everyone that continues to make valued contributions!

Sam

Are two referendums better than one?

On Monday the Electoral Commission published it's interim report on electoral reform, which you can read here. They are also going to send copies to every household in the island. The public consultation is now back on for you to submit your views on what they have proposed. I encourage you all to do so, or attend one of their public meetings. I'm preparing a submission and will post it here when it is completed (though it will essentially just repeat the points I am making here).

The first point I want to make is that, in some ways, the recommendations is better than I could have expected, but there are still some issues that need to be addressed, particularly process. Much of what the campaign group Reform Jersey that I am involved with had been saying has been said to be accepted by the commission.

A brief summary of the recommendations are as follows -

• Abolition of the position of Senator and the island wide constituency.
• Island to be divided up into 6 super-constituencies, based on combining parishes (with St Helier split into two), with roughly equal populations.
• The number of States Members to be 42.
• Each elected on the same day for a 4 year term.
• The issue of whether Constables remain in the States to be put to a public referendum.
• Thus, the States would either be entirely the new Deputies, or 12 Constables and 30 Deputies.

The commission has further said that it is still considering the possibilities of adopting a transferable voting system and the possibility of an upper chamber.

The Principles

One major criticism that Reform Jersey had with the commission was it's apparent lack of guiding principles behind that reform. We said that any reform must be based on an idea of what "democracy" is and how the best way to practically form one in Jersey is, rather than just shifting things about to see if it works. A key moment in the public hearings was the interview with Daniel Wimberley who really took them to task over the issue and interrogated them on their strategy. The transcript can be read here.

Reform Jersey argued that any reform must have these three principles at it's core -

1. Each voter should have the same number of votes.
2. Each district should have the same population.
3. The system should be simple and user friendly.

The first thing to note about the interim report is that they overtly state that these three principles were accepted. Including the most welcome addition of a fourth principle that said "A candidate should generally require a significant number of votes in order to be elected to the Assembly". Obviously this is something we welcome.

What I also noticed was this particular line "With thriving debate, and greater public participation, Jersey’s government will have a better claim to be founded upon the bedrock of popular consent."

This is the first time they have actually hinted on what the point of this whole thing is. You'd have thought with this as your supposed starting ground it would be very difficult to go wrong. But all is far from over yet and it is still possible for it all to go wrong.

Referendum v Referendums

Interestingly the commission have declined to make any decision on the Constables (which would have resulting in strong criticism from either side, no matter what) and said that it should be put to the public in a referendum.

Now, I am not scared of a referendum. I'm confident that in a fair contest, my side of the argument would win. But I do have real problems with this both on principle and practicality.

On the principle, the commission has laid out their guiding principles and they are simply incompatible with keeping the Constables. If the commission believes all districts should have the same population, they cannot also say keeping the Constables is acceptable. It appears that even Senator Bailhache is admitting that if the public chose the version of their recommendations that kept the Constables, it would be even less democratic than the system we have now. So why even offer it as an option?

To offer it for a direct vote also accepts the principle that these things should be decided by majority vote. Democracy isn't about just doing what the majority say, it's about much broader principles. If the majority decided that red haired people shouldn't be allowed to vote, even though that's a majority decision, it's not democratic, because it doesn't accept the principle of each person being equal. That is the crucial point. The Constables in the States is not democratic by objective standards.

But there are also the practical implications to wonder. I had always thought that the commission would come up with recommendations and that would be put to the people in a simple yes or no question like "do you agree with the Electoral Commissions findings?". Simple, no ambiguity and no room for interpretation.

The new proposal complicates things.

What happens now? Is there going to be two referendums? One for the Constable issue, the other for the rest of the proposals? Will there just be one referendum on the Constables and no option for the status quo? Or will there be one referendum but with three options?

All of these have problems.

If there are two referendums, what happens if the public vote to get rid of the Constables, but then vote against the remainder of the recommendations? Or if no one wants either option, so everyone stays at home instead of voting? Or if in the 3 option referendum, no option gets over 50%?

Any of these options will mean it is impossible to accurately interpret the will of the people. A complicated question means a complicated answer. If it isn't simple and straight forward, it will have no legitimacy and could even be open to legal challenge.

If the commission is truly committed to those principles it described, then it should not recommend another referendum. Just put the option without Constables to the people. That is the most effective way of solving this.

What was left out

The commission deliberately left out some issues that it is considering further.

The first of these was whether to swap from first past the post to a transferable voting system. As vocal I have been about my views on the Constables and democracy, at the end of the day, this issue really is just as important. The outcome of a first past the post election is almost always a legislature that does not accurately reflect the views of the population in a proportional way.

For a great argument in favour of STV check out former Senator Pierre Horsfall's submission to the Electoral Commission here.

The other thing they are considering is the use of an upper chamber to scrutinise legislation (as opposed to scrutinising policy). I've said before that I think it's a waste of time. If there are enough members in the main chamber, there is no need for another. That is where I may take issue at there only being 42 members. They say there should be fewer members, but to then suggest an upper house that would probably bring the number up seems to be contradictory.

What now?

It's clear that of the commissions two proposals, one of them is clearly a winner that would solve a huge amount of problems in Jerseys electoral system and is clearly far better than what we have now.

The option of 42 "Deputies" in super constituencies based on the Parishes isn't far off what Clothier recommended. I would prefer the constituencies were drawn up on population and kept up to date with an independent boundary commission, but what is being recommended is certainly tolerable. It's this option that we need to single out and demonstrate is clearly the better option.


One things for sure, regardless of all of this, I really am looking forward to getting stuck in with a proper public debate on the issue. This should be a big deal, being given a direct say on issues like this. There should be campaign groups, leafleting, knocking on doors, public debates, it's going to be great!

I'm really proud to be involved in such a positive campaign with Reform Jersey and glad that the principles we have argued for are being accepted.

Finally, please follow Reform Jersey to keep up to date with the campaign. What Reform Jersey stands for makes sense and is logical and our lobbying has clearly had an impact.

http://www.facebook.com/ReformJersey

https://twitter.com/ReformJersey


Cheers,
Sam


p.s. I did actually have to look up whether it's "referenda" or "referendums". Apparently referenda is for multiple issues, referendums for the same issue. Damn confusing!



Nick Le Cornu's blog here has video footage of the presentation and questions on the reform package.

No such thing as independence

So now a post on something not really Jersey related but something that’s quite interesting going on.

Today the Prime Minister of the UK and the First Minister of Scotland signed an agreement laying out the foundations for the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence. It’s confirmed that 16 year olds will be allowed to vote, and that the only question on the ballet will be that of independence (no question on further devolution). (The full thing can be read here)

The question of “independence” comes up a lot in various different contexts. Whether it’s Senator Bailhaches covert campaign for Jersey’s independence from the UK, the SNPs campaign for Scotland’s independence from the UK or UKIPs campaign for independence from the European Union.

I've been thinking about it quite a lot because I was contacted by someone from BBC Scotland the other day who wanted to ask me about what impact lowering the voting age in Jersey had, considering it was about to be done in Scotland. I might be interviewed for a program on that subject, but it's not confirmed yet.

Being a socialist and a democrat, you'd expect me to be against any sort of nationalism and in favour of self determination. I've expressed views on the Falkland Islands before, as well as my pretty strong views on Israel-Palestine. But the answer to any question of self determination doesn't always answer with independence. A people can, and in my opinion should, choose to be part of greater unions.

The world is getting smaller, we need fewer countries, not more. The world needs more co-operation and less competition.

There are obviously all the questions to ask about things like identity etc, which are important, but I'm more concerned about the practical implications.



On Scotland

The question of independence for Scotland is an utterly futile one. On such a small island as Great Britain, and with the context of the EU, frankly, there is no such thing as real independence for Scotland.

If Scotland were independent, it would have 3 paths it could go down. Independence away from the EU, independence in the EU with the Pound as its currency, or independence in the EU with the Euro.

All three of these have problems.

The first option, to be outside of the EU, isn't really feasible. For a start, look how Iceland turned out. Their economy completely crashed and now they are begging for EU membership. But Scotland could model itself on Norway which is a part of the European Free Trade Area and is doing quite well for itself. But the problem there is that that position requires a huge democratic deficit. To be a part of the EFTA, you still have to be subject to all EU directives and regulations, but because you aren't actually a part of the EU, you don’t have a seat at the table, helping decide what those rules are. You even have to make a contribution to the costs of running the EU! For Norway, that actually amounts to more than some of the countries that are actually a part of the EU.

But the stated preferred position from the Scottish Government is that Scotland would remain in the EU (the key word there is “remain”, rather than, “apply to stay in”) with Sterling. Of course you then have to ask yourself why being in a union with England is not acceptable on the island, but it is on the continent...

The Scottish government believes that an independent Scotland would automatically remain a part of the EU, though they have refused to publish their evidence for this, and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

If Scotland leaves the UK, it is doing just that, leaving the UK. It isn't ending the UK. The UK will carry on; just it will be without Scotland. It will be the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The well established international legal precedent is that when a part of a country secedes, it is effectively starting over fresh, whereas the country it left carries on with all of its legal obligations. When the Soviet Union split up, Russia took over its seat in the UN and the Security Council, and adopted all of the USSR’s treaties and diplomatic relations with all other countries. It was the countries like Georgia and Armenia that had to apply for new UN membership and set up their own embassies etc. The same happened to South Sudan quite recently.

It would be no different for Scotland. Scotland would have to seek to get its own signature on all the treaties it wanted to, but all of those would be subject to negotiation.

Now, whether Scotland had to apply to be a member of the EU is in a way irrelevant, because if it did, there is virtually no doubt that it would be accepted. It’s already implemented all EU legislation and, by virtue of having been a part of the UK for so long, it is at the required standards to join. The question that then arises is what conditions would there be?

The UK currently has many opt-outs from various treaty clauses that is has managed to negotiate. Things like not being compelled to join the Euro or join the Schengen Zone. The Schengen Zone is the area of Europe in which there are no border controls or need to present a passport. The UK has its own “Common Travel Area” with the Republic of Ireland and the crown dependencies, but it doesn't extend to the rest of Europe.

The problem Scotland has is that it will not inherit the UK's opt-outs, it will have to negotiate its own. A country of 5 million people will have far less bargaining power at the negotiating table than a country of 70 million has. Any country that joins Europe is required to eventually join both the Euro and the Schengen Zone. Both of these will be completely unacceptable to the Scottish people. Firstly because the Euro is in a bit of a mess at the moment that joining it now seems like too much of a risk to take. But it is also impossible to be a part of both the CTA and Schengen. If Scotland had no border controls with the rest of Europe, as well as none with the UK and Ireland, Scotland would become the point at which illegal immigrants used as their route into the UK. That would be completely unacceptable to the UK government and it would mean building border controls would have to be built between Scotland and England.

The island is too small for a partition like that, it would cause a huge amount of aggravation for ordinary people in both countries, given the massive business and also family ties the people have.

But then comes the final hurdle. Regardless of whether Scotland accepts the terms of ascension as they are, or by some miracle they manage to negotiate some exemptions, there will have to be a unanimous approval by the rest of the member states for Scotland to join, and one of those countries that will need to approve will be the UK. If the UK (or any other country for that matter) says no, it can’t join. End of. And as the Prime Minister has shown, he isn't afraid to jeopardise our countries relationship with Europe by using that veto if he thinks it’s in the UK's interests.

So if Scotland wants to join the EU, it will have to be extra nice to the UK. As it stands, the Scottish government position is that an independent Scotland would not inherit the UK’s debt, it would maintain control over all of the North Sea oil, the UK's nuclear weapons would be kicked out of Scotland (which also has implications for Scotland’s stated position of remaining in NATO), it would keep the Scottish army facilities and the Scottish banks that were bailed out by the UK government will remain the UK governments problem. The UK government won’t want to accept any of these.

I've already said that Scotland will have issues joining the Euro, but there are equally issues using the Pound. For a start, Scotland will have no say over what interest rates the Bank of England sets. At the moment, the Bank of England will take into account the economy of the whole UK when deciding the rates, but if Scotland isn't a part of that country, then it has no duty to consider them. So the current legitimate complaint from the Scots that interest rates are unfair on Scotland, will actually become worse if Scotland becomes independent.

An independent Scotland would be completely free to do whatever it likes with its taxes. I foresee two possible outcomes from this. If the people of Scotland didn’t see the SNP as being redundant after independence, and kept them on in government, they’d be likely to smartly realise if they lowered taxes, they could encourage wealthy people and businesses to come from England to Scotland. The rest of the UK won’t like this, and it will cause tension. The other possibility is that the SNP will become history and Scotland will become perpetually ruled by a more left wing Scottish Labour party who will do the opposite and raise taxes, meaning anyone worth anything will just leave to the rest of the UK (which will be perpetually ruled by Tories who will lower taxes).

Either way it is a race to the bottom that will mean both countries lose out on tax revenues.

Does the Scottish government really think that the UK would be happy to let them proceed with tax policies that they saw as being detrimental? Especially when the SNP says that an independent Scotland would want to keep using the Pound. As the Eurozone has showed us, a monetary union does not work unless there is a degree of fiscal co-ordination. If Scotland wants to use the Pound, it will have to have a fiscal pact or treaty with the UK, and as the greater power, it will be the UK calling the shots, and it will specifically bar Scotland from doing things, like lowering corporation tax, that it thought would harm the UK economy.

So at the end of it all, you have to ask yourself the question, what on Earth would Scotland benefit from by becoming independent? They wouldn't gain influence, they’d lose it, and they’d still have to concede a hell of a lot to the UK government and follow their rules. Some “independence”, huh?



But what this whole saga does is put a massive question mark over Britain's entire constitution and just what hell is exactly going on. When different parts of Britain and different sections of the population are pulling in various different directions and making different decisions constitutionally, you can end up with a country that is in disarray in how it is governed because of its inconsistencies.

Some in Britain are proud that we have an unwritten constitution, though in parliament virtually everyone concedes that the UK should be working towards writing one. The whole way the UK is governed needs to be re-examined, and looked at in the context of the whole country, and not just in the contexts of its constituent parts.

Scotland is likely to reject independence, but after the vote it is sure to get more powers for its parliament. The Welsh Assembly has indicated it wants to upgrade to a parliament. Then there’s Northern Ireland where no one is quite sure exactly what is going on. And England doesn't have any of its own institutions at all.

The problem with devolution is that it requires another level of politicians and any politician with any talent isn't going to want to waste them time in a devolved parliament, they'd rather be in national government. If Charles Kennedy led the Scottish Lib Dems, he would probably easily win government and become First Minister because he’s a very good politician. I'd guess Jim Murphey from Labour could do the same. But neither of these people have any interest, because their talents can serve far more people at the national level. Whereas the nationalists only care about their areas so don't bother as much with the UK parliament, which means they are destined to do better in the devolved parliaments.

When England has no assembly, a lot of resentment is caused by things like the West Lothian question where MPs from the other parts of Britain are able to vote (sometimes decisively) on issues that only affect England. You had the perverse situation where Scottish Lib Dem MPs were going on programs like Question Time justifying the rise in tuition fees, knowing perfectly well that they would go home to their constituencies that weekend and not have to justify it to their own constituents who weren't affected by it.

There’s talk of different ways to solve it, from creating an English Parliament, to just legislating to prevent non-English MPs voting on English matters, or just having the English MPs meet monthly to vote on English matters etc.

The problem is that none of these get to the real point, which is that there is inconsistency across the UK that needs to be addressed. There needs to be a debate on what the future of the country as a whole is.

My suggestion is this - The United Kingdom should be reconstituted into a Federal Republic. The national parliament should retain responsibility for pan-Britain affairs, defence, foreign relations, some taxes etc, but everything else should be decided in the local parliaments. But England shouldn't have a single parliament because it's too big and too diverse. It should be split into regions that make sense geo-politically and culturally. So there'd be parliaments for the North-East, South-West etc but also London could be it's own region. Each region would therefore have it's own First Ministers (they could also have directly elected presidents, if that was something desired).

That would be the most democratic, the fairest and most consistent way to run the UK. I've made my views on the monarchy clear enough, hence why I've said it should be a Republic, but that doesn't necessarily mean the Queen couldn't remain in some sort of ceremonial role alongside an executive president.


On Europe

Last week came the controversial news that the European Union had won the Nobel Peace Prize.

I've said on this blog before that I believe patriotism is the final refuge of a scoundrel, and I don’t believe in being proud of where you are from simply because you happened to have accidentally been born there, but I have to confess that upon hearing that the EU had won this award, I actually did feel pride.

The Nobel Peace Prize has always been something I've had a bit of disdain for because of how many completely undeserving recipients it has. From Barack Obama, several Israeli Prime Ministers, the Dalai Lama, etc, it just seems a bit of a laughing stock. But here I felt an institution that actually deserved the recognition was being given it, especially at a time when it is so important for people to remember why the European Union was formed in the first place.

I went to Paris a few months ago and spent some time in Les Invalides, the military museum, where I noticed this sign that initially confused me –





You'll notice the dates for the two world wars aren't what we generally perceive them to be. Most people would say that the First World War started in 1914. But when I thought about it some more I remembered that the French have a different perspective on these sorts of things than us in the Anglosphere have.

Forty four years before the First World War was another devastating war between Germany and France that Britain had not been involved in. It ended with a humiliating French loss and having to surrender a significant amount of territory to Germany. The resentment was one thing that led to the tension that led to the First World War and also the French desire to force harsher terms on Germany in the Treaty of Versailles. Then came the devastation of the Second World War.

For hundreds of years, Europe had constantly been at war with itself, hundreds of millions of lives were lost, and it always set back progression. But today, such a situation is completely unthinkable.

France and Germany, two of the most powerful countries in the world, going to war is just a ridiculous idea now, even though for centuries it was something that happened every 5 minutes. Whereas, for the decades after the Second World War, it was entirely feasible that America and the Soviet Union could go to war. A completely different situation.

The ultimate tool to prevent war is business. When America and the Soviet Union started co-operating more, the tensions reduced and both nations realised that there was nothing to gain from war. The same was true for Germany and France, though they realised it much sooner.

The creation of the European Coal and Steel Community (the precursor to the European Economic Community) was such a simple, yet genius idea. It brought joint control over their coal and steel resources, and thus made it physically impossible for the countries to wage a war with each other, because they were legally bound to co-operate on their resources for waging war!

I've always said that if America wanted to reduce tension with Russia and China, it should invite them both to join NATO!

Then from the ECSC it developed into EEC, the EC and now the EU, further intertwining the countries of Europe so they are so economically connected with each other that war between then is just impossible.

But all this isn't to say that Britain would instantly be at war with our European neighbours if we left the EU, but it does show that the EU and further integration is plainly the future and by not being at the forefront of it, the UK will be sidelined, so independence from Europe doesn't offer us anything.

There is all sorts of pathetic misinformation about the European Union that goes around in the right-wing press in Britain. As much as we may moan about the media in Jersey and it's constant inability to present things accurately, we should always remember that the UK national papers are often capable of the same level of incompetence. But as usual, it is bloggers that hold them to account and help get the truth out. My favourite source for finding information on the European Union is this great blog - http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/

The fact is, the EU is nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be. It isn't that undemocratic (especially when compared with the UK system of government), it doesn't take away our sovereignty and it is good value for money.

Britain at the forefront of Europe would make the whole continent more prosperous and more peaceful. Independence is just built on petty nationalism that can only cause harm in the long run.


On Jersey

Do I even need to make the case?

Cheers,

Sam

Strikes, the lesser of two evils.

Another strike, another opportunity for the media to completely misrepresent the situation! Some facts desperately need clearing up.

Lets get this out of the way first - I hate strikes.

I'm not one of these people that glories in militancy and itch to kick off and take a day off. When a strike happens, regardless of anything, it is a sign of a failure with industrial relations between the bosses and the workers. I'm pro-business (not in the Tory way I hasten to add) and no business will be sustainable and moral if it is unable to keep a team of people together who are capable of getting on together without resentment.

I don't want there to be problems at work. Problems at work can ruin lives. Whether it is bullying from co-workers, discrimination, or fear of losing that job, all these little things can make life unbearable for ordinary working people. I want everyone to be able to go to work, get on with everyone and be treated fairly, with dignity and able to put all their effort into working hard and getting their job done.

But what I hate more than strikes is when people in high places think they can take their workers for granted, treat them like dirt and walk all over them. When that happens, working people absolutely have to be prepared to stand up for themselves. In that circumstance, going on strike is the lesser evil and we should support them if they are a last resort and if all negotiations have failed.

Withdrawing ones labour is a fundamental human right. The moment that right is lost, we lose our freedom, because it's a green light for those in positions of power to start asking for more from their workers whilst giving them less, and we would be able to do nothing about it. That would start a race to the bottom for working conditions and we would all suffer as a result.

The fact that a group of workers can organise themselves and refuse to work gives them a bargaining power that without, they would be powerless to do anything at work. And what sort of democracy would we be if we left workers powerless to do anything to affect such an important part of their lives?

But what have the unions ever done for us?!

*Warning - contains strong language*

So let's look at exactly what is being said about this particular case in Jersey and what the truth actually is.

Despite misleading articles and an irrelevant fixation, this strike has absolutely nothing to do with pay, or technically even the hours they are allowed to work.

What it is to do with is the fact a promise was broken. Simple enough.

When a company is sold on to another, or, as in this case, a service provider is tendered out, it can be a ridiculously stressful time for the workers. They can be kept out of the know, not be a part of the negotiations and end up not even knowing whether they will still have a job by the end of it all.

But here, the workers, represented by their trade union Unite (which is also my union, which I totally recommend joining, it's far better than my utterly useless NUS membership...) negotiated with the Transport and Technical Services department to get assurances that whichever company won the tender, the workers could all keep their jobs and their current conditions, as they were. TTS agreed.

The arrangement for the transfer was to be the same as that provided in the Transfer Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. So it was pretty clear what had to be done.

But what has kicked off this strike is the realisation that actually no such transfer has been properly arranged. TTS says it is because Connex and Unite didn't provide them with the documentation necessary, though they both claim that all of the information was provided initially for the tender information. I'm more inclined to believe Connex because their point of view makes much more sense.

If one business made a promise to another business and then broke it, they would get sued for breach of contract. How is the Connex workers going on strike any different?

The workers (I say workers, because it's all Connex workers, not just the bus drivers), are now being offered contracts that are different from the ones they currently have. This is the real point. This is not what they were promised. They were promised that their jobs were all guaranteed and things would stay as they are. You can argue over whether that's right or not, but it's an irrelevant argument, because it's not what was agreed.

Making then breaking promises is a poor way to conduct business. If TTS had no intention of securing a TUPE style transfer, then they should never have undertaken that commitment, and now their palming off the blame on others is just pathetic.

There's all sorts of nonsense in the media about them being able to work 70 hours a week (that's 10 hours a day, think it through for goodness sake...). No one works 70 hours a week.  Now, there may well be some health and safety issues for people driving for long hours, but that is a matter for statute to correct because no limits also apply to taxi drivers, coach drivers or drivers down at the harbour.

There is also talk about how the strike is technically illegal. True, you need to give 7 days notice for a strike. Problem there is that CTP were giving them until 12th October to accept their new contracts. So they physically didn't have enough time to give them notice. CTP had promised to meet workers representatives this weekend, but didn't. It's a dirty tactic to give a deadline like that and not allow enough time for negotiation and consultation so resolve the dispute. Striking is a last option.

But hey, if Churchill had had to give Hitler 7 days notice he was sending some Spitfires round, we probably wouldn't have won the second world war!

This may technically give Connex the right to sack the strikers. But they won't because it would be impossible to sack the entire work force, and they can't sack a section of them because there is no way of fairly distinguishing a group for sacking that wouldn't be considered unfairly discriminatory.

Of course, it really is a huge shame that this has to affect so many others in Jersey. The OAPs who can't get out and about without the buses. The kids who have real trouble getting to school. It really is a shame, but how could anyone expect to put aside their livelihood for others in that way? There comes a point where they just have to do what is best for themselves. I spend half the year in London where we regularly have public transport strikes, and we just get on with our day and find another way to get where we need to be. The price of riding your bike for a few days is worth paying if it means we live in a fairer society in which bosses aren't allowed to get away with breaking agreements with their workers.

When will working people realise that the reason they so often get such a rough deal is because they are tricked into fighting each other instead of fighting those above them?

I hope the strike is resolved as quickly as possible, and frankly, I think the TTS Minister should be ready to tender his resignation for doing such a poor and shambolic job over all this.


Finally, I just wanted to share a comment from our esteemed former Senator Jim Perchard who posted on the BBCs facebook page this comment earlier -

Of course I could spend hours dismantling this fascistic nonsense, but instead I'll just point out the comment my best friend James (a guy who I have huge admiration for and whose blunt way of putting a point across can instantly have me in fits of laughter) left him. The comment was "Hey Jim, I suppose you think all the bus drivers should just go top themselves, right?". Priceless!

Cheers,

Sam

A failing government void of values and economic credibility

The inescapable story of today has been the news that Jersey remains in recession with negative economic growth of 1%. That's a 14% contraction in 3 years.

Whilst in the UK there is huge controversy when economic growth is at -0.5% and the fact that the UK has gone in, then out, then back into recession again, in Jersey there seems to be mainstream complacency from the public about the fact that our economic decline has been consistent without even a brief period of recovery like the UK.

In the UK there are threats of a general strike and a strong political opposition that attempts to argue against the failing governments economic plans. Yet in Jersey, the only ones seemingly ready to stand up and do something about it are the trade unions, who are dismissed by the media and right wing commentators and only make up a small part of the population anyway.

All the more important, this news comes at a time when we find out that in Guernsey their economy actually grew by 1%. We have two islands right next door to each other. Jersey is in recession, Guernsey is not. Jersey has high unemployment, Guernsey does not. Jersey has had to increase GST, Guernsey didn't even have to introduce one. This shows that it isn't just about a world wide downturn, but that government policy is capable on influencing it.

We really need to ask ourselves where Jersey is going wrong and what needs to change to fix things as soon as possible.

Irresponsible promises

We had the astounding spin from Senator Ozouf that a 1% contraction in the economy was somehow "an encouraging sign", but when you dig deeper to see what the governments actual policies are in this tough economic time, it is anything but encouraging.

When the economy is in crisis you'd expect to see mainstream arguments (as they have in the UK) between what the appropriate way to fix it with public spending and tax initiatives is. In Jersey we don't really have this debate on any meaningful level. We just hear a few bits and bobs from a government that doesn't overtly seem to have any guiding principles or values leading to why it is doing what it is doing, and then the arguments about how each particular policy is in line with their vision.

The Treasury Minister has made the rather irresponsible promise that there will be no further tax rises for 3 years. They say a week is a long time in politics, so 3 years is a very long time indeed and, especially when the economy is in the shape it is, it is irresponsible to say that the government will absolutely not consider tax rises for such a period of time.

When you make promises like that, you are destined to break them, which leads to unhealthy cynicism in politics. Remember Senator Ozoufs promise that he would actively resist any attempt to raise GST and then he was the one who actively proposed it?

What he should be saying is that if the economy worsens, the government will have to re-examine it's strategy. Having no "Plan B", as it were, could be catastrophic. Okay, that means a degree of long term uncertainty for both business and the public, but the alternative is far worse.

But the government can make some promises.

The government can't and shouldn't be making a blanket promise of no tax rises. But what they can promise is that whatever their fiscal policy is, it will be compatible with certain values and principles. Namely that it will be those most well off amongst us that should bare the brunt of the tax rises and that cuts to public spending will be targeted at things that will not make life harder for vulnerable people that rely on those public services. By implication, that means things like no increase in GST, maybe having a Capital Gains Tax introduced instead etc.

That is a promise that they can make, but they aren't. Time and time again, Jersey ends up with a government that (aside from the accurate generalisations that they are conservative and work as a block) is undefinable in the sense of pinning a specific clear line of policy (a "manifesto"), a clear set of values and working method. Our political system doesn't let these values become the centre of what we are trying to decide at election time. Instead it's just a personality contest.

The 5 point plan

In my 5 point plan (outlined in a previous blog post), I said that Jersey needs to focus its cuts in spending on waste and unproductive government activities. I can immediately identify two topical things that are a waste. Firstly, we have talk at the moment that the States may buy up the old Pontins site at Plemont for £8m (which by the way, the owner says is not enough), and then sell it on the Jersey National Trust for £2m so they can return it to nature. Personally, the idea of returning something to nature seems absurd to me. That site has had buildings on it for well over 150 years. Any nature that one day occupies it will be "artificial nature". Instead we have developers wanting to build housing on it and they don't even have to destroy any more nature to do so. Yet the government is intent on wasting £6m for no apparent benefit.

Secondly there has also been talk about the Williamson report looking into a terms of reference for a committee of inquiry into the child abuse scandal in Jersey. This, despite the fact that the government had already spent £60k on the Verita report into a terms of reference for an inquiry. Having two reports was a total waste of money, especially when the first one had nothing wrong with it. They just need to get on with it and have a full and comprehensive committee of inquiry to get justice for the victims and lay a foundation for framework to make sure this can never happen again to vulnerable children in Jersey. That would be money well spent, not like the thousands they have needlessly wasted trying to cover it all up.

The fact that the government will waste money on things like this whilst telling ordinary working people that they have to face cuts to public spending shows contempt for the ordinary people of Jersey.

All of the money that can be saved should be spent on projects for job creation and helping small businesses. GST should be cut (if only temporarily) and alternative tax methods should be looked at that focus on extracting more from the islands wealthiest.

The problem is that the personal politics of it is coming before the economics. The individuals that are fighting for these things aren't able to do so on a wider platform. So nobody ends up with what they want out of the government.

Solution

As I have made clear in my previous posts on electoral reform, Jersey's political system is not fit for purpose. It is neither democratic, nor capable of producing an effective and cohesive government.

In my essay The Economic Dictatorship I argue that the most profound benefit of a full and working democracy is that it is inevitably going to create a better economy. It provides for the utilisation of all talents, it allows the incorporation and consideration of criticism and provides for the benefits of wealth creation to be equitably spread around.

Instead we have a States Assembly with many talents excluded from government, valid criticism is often silenced, and Jersey is becoming more unequal every day. We need a dramatic change in the political culture of this island otherwise we are doomed to decades more of the same, running this beautiful island into the ground.

A seemingly absurd comparison

The more I think about it, the more I am drawn to make an historical comparison that may on the face of it seem absurd, but hear me out.

Karl Marx believed (and I agree with him wholeheartedly) that revolutions are an inevitability in systems that allow the the material base to become so far detached from a mass of people who are becoming more and more intellectually and philosophically aware. He predicted that this would be the case with capitalism (and he has yet to be vindicated), but it's a principle that clearly works in other situations.

Take for example the Soviet Union. In the 1980s, the people of the USSR began to realise that their economic and political model was unsustainable and had to go, but that it was best for everyone to avoid a revolution because (as the early anti-Trotskyites realised) a revolution is chaotic and does not necessarily lead to democracy.

This was realised and spearheaded by the reformer Mikhail Gorbachev (in my opinion a great man), who wanted an organised transition from a Communist dictatorship into a social democracy. But the hard line Communists (who had vested interests) attempted to subvert the process, which caused chaos, which was exploited by Boris Yeltsin (in my opinion a terrible man) who was able to take power, get independence for Russia, break apart the Soviet Union (despite the only democratic referendum in Soviet history showing a huge majority supported keeping the union), and plunge the country into economic downturn. Now the former nations of the Soviet Union have bad relations, there has been war, and Russia is run by the oligarchs. Now the world is left with one superpower, the United States of America, which has been a profound force for evil internationally and has not had another superpower to balance it out (do you think America could have invaded Iraq if a democratic Soviet superpower had opposed it?).

Now compare this to Jersey. We also have a political system that is not fit for purpose, that the public are growing increasingly discontent with. We had our great reformer, Daniel Wimberley, set out the framework to fix Jerseys political system. But those with vested interests sought to subvert it, and Senator Bailhache was able to usurp it. If the people of Jersey remain complacent, Senator Bailhache will be our very own Boris Yeltsin.

(Yes, I did just compare the Jersey Establishment to the Soviet hard line Communists! That was the part of the comparison that might have sounded absurd)

The point that I am trying to make is that culturally, Jersey is completely in the wrong place to fix our problems. We need more political engagement and active debates on the economy as a whole and what values we want behind the policies to ensure that the island resembles what we want it to. But Jersey must be able to reform itself and put aside the vested interests.

Those that have been in power in Jersey for decades have run the island for the interests of only themselves and a small minority of the islands population (the rich) on the basis of an ideology that is not only morally bankrupt, but also ignorant of the economic realities that have been adduced since the 1920s.

Jersey needs to build a popular movement of ordinary people from all walks of life that can fight and argue for an administration that runs by full democratic principles and actively seeks out to create a fairer society based on the values that we all hold. Jersey needs a democratic socialist political party in whom we can place our trust and help to win control of Jersey so that it can be run by the people, for the people.

Having full employment is not impossible. Having decent pensions for our old folks is not impossible. Having a society in which we all have our fair place and contribute a fair amount to the community is not impossible. We just need to accept these realities and work together to cast aside the vested interests and make this island as good as it can be.


We're working on it!


Sam



P.S. Deputy Pitman has started video blogs talking about topical events and giving a spin on it that you won't hear in the mainstream media. Check it out - http://thebaldtruthjersey.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/the-bald-truth-review-political-week-in.html

Also, since I mentioned the Williamson report, here is the reaction from the JCLA - http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/guest-posting-from-abuse-survivor-and.html