Jersey Reform Day

Just a short post to draw attention to something.

Some of you might know that I'm very much involved in the music scene in Jersey. I play in a rock band and organise the "Jersey Dead" festival each year to provide an alternative to Jersey Live. That combined with an interest in politics and history means I want to do my part to spread the word about the Corn Riot Knees Up! event.

Tomorrow (that's Friday 28th September) in the Royal Square at 5pm is a free concert to commemorate the corn riots in 1769. It will start with a few acts from La Motte Street Youth Centre, which is an organisation I was involved in for several years (even as chairman of their studio management group) and I think the world of them for the great work they do, so it's always worth being there to support them. Following that local band the Badlabecques are releasing an album in Jerriais. I've not had a chance to see them live yet, but I've seen some footage and they seem like a good laugh.

To be perfectly honest, I've always had a bit of contempt for Jerriais as something that I saw as a waste of time and certainly not worth wasting money on. But I think a group like the Badlabecques will do a lot more for the language and make it more relevant than any compulsory school lessons that I believe are being tried in some primary schools at the moment.

Were I in Jersey I'd certainly be down there at the front row.

But more importantly, the 28th of September was the date in 1769 in which the people of Jersey rose up against their oppressors and posed their biggest challenge to their authority. So much so, they couldn't ignore all of their demands, and had to implement some reforms in the way Jersey was governed to make it more accountable. Clearly a lot more still needs to be done and Jersey desperately needs another 28th September.

Events like 1769, along with the revolutions that began to happen in France and America show that there is no greater force for democracy than an organised mass of people who have the courage to demand their rights. Those in power will not grant those rights easily out of generosity, they need to be coerced.

The Tom Gruchy blog has done a lot of posts about the mini-Jersey revolution and is in fact named after the man who led the protests. It makes for fascinating reading and is definitely worth having a look at.


Cheers,
Sam


http://tomgruchy.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/the-importance-of-friday-28-september.html
http://www.electoralcommission.je/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Dun-Michael-32.pdf
https://www.facebook.com/events/354084961339540/358210717593631/

Populist posturing on benefits or a worthy crackdown on the undeserving?

A post today on something non-electoral reform related, just to prove I'm not a one trick pony!

We have the news that the Social Security department, led by Minister Senator Le Gresley, is contemplating tougher crackdowns on people who do not actively seek out work whilst claiming benefits.

I recently volunteered for a year at a Citizens Advice Bureau in a poor part of London where a large part of what I did was benefits casework. This meant helping people with their problems claiming benefits, appealing against decisions to cut their benefits and sometimes working on ways to get people off relying on the state. So I have some understanding of the sorts of issues that affect people on benefits, what they are like and how the system works (albeit the UK system, not the Jersey system).

Most will know that Senator Le Gresley made his name as the manager of the CAB in Jersey and so I would like to presume that he is someone with a good knowledge of the benefits system in Jersey, someone who has had lots of contact with the sorts of people that go on benefits and so he would be well placed to lead any reforms on the system whilst hopefully being compassionate and understanding. But being involved in an organisation that Senator Le Gresley was involved with, I do have some issues with what he is saying.

When I see articles like the one in the JEP with the rather ominous picture of the minister with a headline like "Benefits threat for jobless who don’t try to find work" I do worry about populist posturing and scapegoating. I want to be convinced that the minister is genuinely making sensible attempts to improve the islands welfare system, in line with the values of a modern social democratic society and not just trying to appease the more right-wing of his colleagues and try and score some cheap votes from the public.

Benefits are an easy target. All you have to do is check any online message board to see the comments using words like "spongers", "lazy" and all sorts of misguided statements about foreigners claiming benefits (which, by the way they can't do until they have lived and worked here for 5 years). People get wound up (sometimes very understandably) when they see people who they believe have a cushy lifestyle that is paid for by their hard earned tax pounds.

But this is exactly why it is so important for people to be well informed and understand the realities and the implications. As a socialist, I just don't like the idea of kicking someone that is already down. I believe in siding with the oppressed, and if you are unemployed you are oppressed.

The problem with attacking unemployed people is that for the vast majority of them it is not their fault.

If every job vacancy in Jersey were filled tomorrow by local unemployed people, there would still be hundreds left on the dole queues, because there just aren't enough jobs and the economy is not doing well. The idea that people should be penalised for not having jobs that don't exist just seems perverse to me. Cutting unemployment benefits (which the minister isn't suggesting yet) will not incentivise people into work, because lack of incentive is not the problem. The problem is the lack of opportunities.

I've been lucky as a student to not experience unemployment (by definition, it's impossible for me to be unemployed) but I have a lot of friends that I have witnessed really struggle both financially and emotionally with unemployment. I saw close friends be made redundant several times in the space of a few months, some spent months unemployed even though they were up every day applying for whatever job they could find (many minimum waged unskilled jobs) yet still got turned away. These were not lazy people who were abusing an overly generous system. These were people who were desperate to find jobs but just couldn't do it.

These people went on benefits during that time because without the money they would have lost their livelihood. They would have become social recluses, lost further motivation and that would have done nobody any favours. So making conditions worse for the unemployed will not help us.

But I'm not actually sure exactly what the minister is planning to do to crack down on this. As it stands, each person on unemployment benefits is given a little log book which they have to fill out every time they apply for a job and have it verified otherwise they don't get their benefits. What more could they do to ensure they aren't giving money to those that aren't seeking work? If anything, some people who have failed time and time again to secure work should be encouraged maybe to give it a bit of a rest and instead focus on volunteering for a worthy organisation, just to keep them in the swing of a work based routine and involved with society.

But don't mistake my sympathy for the unemployed as in anyway condoning people who deliberately play the system. I believe in being a good community that looks after those less well off and those that have run into trouble, but the other side to that is that people must be willing to engage with that community and not exploit that generosity. I say to everyone, if you are aware of people that are cheating the system, instead of going online to moan about it, pick up your telephone and call the police. Cheating the system is a crime and those that commit it should be prosecuted and demanded to pay the money back. Whilst I don't want changes in the system to hurt unemployed people, I equally don't want to reward genuinely lazy people.

The overall point I am making here is that the solutions to these problems do not lie in a rearrangement of our welfare system. The solutions lie in fixing our deeper economic problems.

I've often been accused (unfairly in my unbiased opinion) of focusing too much on things like electoral reform which do not directly impact on peoples living standards and that I'd be better off spending my time talking about the issues that really matter.

So here is the Sam Mézec 5 point plan to get us out of this mess -

1. The government should invest in projects that will encourage economic growth in the sectors likely to create employment opportunities suitable for local unemployed people.
   
   
2. At the same time as investing in worthwhile projects, the government should cease unnecessary and wasteful spending on projects that are not value for money and do not help government finances (e.g. fee paying schools subsidies should be halved). The money should be reallocated to better schemes.
   
   
3. A temporary GST "holiday" by reducing the rate to 0% will let shops lower their prices and boost consumption in the island which will stimulate some economic activity. At the same time, a way must be found to stop non-local businesses charging VAT to islanders. We are not a part of the UK and it is harmful to our economy to have prices artificially increased by UK companies not taking off VAT.
   
   
4. The government should introduce serious incentives for businesses to employ locally based people, and train those that are already employed here rather than importing people from outside the island to do jobs that local people could do, or could be trained to do.
   
   
5. Lastly, and perhaps most vaguely, Jersey has become too reliant on one industry that a vast amount of Jersey people are just not suitable to work in and so we need diversification. 

Now, some will criticise that as something Jersey can't afford. But I say Jersey can't afford not to do it. Yesterday was the BBC2 documentary on John Maynard Keynes, perhaps one of the top 3 most influential economists of all time (along with my heroes Adam Smith and Karl Marx). Keynes broke the consensus that existed up until the great depression that the "invisible hand" in economics would guide everything to it's natural equilibrium and economic crises would solve themselves, but instead what was important in tough economic times was for the state to actively intervene to fix the crisis.

The neoliberal understanding of economics (which for some inexplicable reason still persists as a large part of mainstream politics in the 21st century) was that in a recession, the free market would naturally adjust itself to the conditions and, crucially, prices would inevitably come down because of a lack of consumption and that would solve everything. But the problem was very simple, it just didn't happen. Governments didn't understand economics well enough in those days to realise, like Keynes later pointed out, that the state is the only thing that can put the economy back on track, by doing what the free market wasn't naturally doing and kick starting growth. This mistake led to the great depression which saw mass unemployment, inflation and the rise of the Nazis.

It is worrying today to see how governments have not learnt the lesson from history. In the UK we have a government blinded by an out of date and out of touch ideology based on economics textbooks from the 1920s and has consequently made a bad situation even worse. The people of France have already rejected that view and Jersey does not have to follow what our counterparts in the UK are doing.

Our attitude to economics needs to change and the post Thatcher/ Reagen consensus needs to be smashed.


Thanks folks,
Sam



P.S.

Slightly off topic, but those that care about democracy and the freedom of journalists to work unharassed by the authorities would do well to sign Deputy Pitmans petition to allow Leah McGrath Goodman back into the UK and Jersey.

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/ukhomeoffice-restore-the-tier-1-uk-visa-of-journalist-leah-mcgrath-goodman-freejersey

A rebuttal to JEP propaganda - Re the Constables.

Since I don't get the JEP I had to have it pointed out to me the, frankly, astounding opinion piece from the JEPs editor Chris Bright on Monday.

It can be viewed online here - http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/comment/2012/09/03/democracy-not-just-efficiency-2/

It would be funny if it weren't for the fact that this sort of rubbish is capable of being published unchecked, because we only have one newspaper!

Aside from the obvious questions to be asked about why Senator Bailhache is leaking bits and pieces like this presumably before the commission has agreed it's final proposition, someone has to produce a counter argument.

[EDIT - Senator Bailhache has posted a statement on the Electoral Commission website saying that despite media speculation, the commission has not yet decided on any of it's recommendations.]

So lets de-construct this bit by bit.

"Despite the insistence of a vociferous minority, there is no evidence of any public demand for the removal of the Constables and no compelling reason why there should be."

Surely the fact there is a "vociferous minority" is evidence that there is some public demand, it's just not a majority, so this quote doesn't even make sense.

But what is unique about the cause for the removal of the Constables (which if Bright took the time to read the ECs submissions he would see is actually a MAJORITY held view!) is how broad a spectrum of people hold that view!

It's often said that because the Constables are generally conservative that opposition to their position comes only from pesky self interested lefties (which is an argument I don't accept because there is nothing stopping a left-wing Constable from being elected), but this is not the case at all.

By no stretch of the English language could people like Constable Len Norman or former Senator Pierre Horsfall be considered left-wingers and lumped in with this "vociferous minority" group. And what does he mean by "vociferous" anyway? If he means people that have put forward articulate, intelligent and logical propositions that have clear links to philosophical principles of democracy, then yes they certainly have been "vociferous" but that can't be a bad thing. But anyway, the argument isn't about numbers, it's about the argument and who puts forward the better case, and the anti-Constable side wins clearly on both counts.

Pierre Horsfall even used his submission to put forward his idea of a "democracy test" which, by his own admission, led him to believe with a heavy heart that the Constables had to leave the States. Constable Norman said that his fundamental principle was that people should have a "choice" and it was all about "democratic principle" (which I told him afterwards was a phrase that virtually all States Members that have submitted something have not used). These comments are not ones that can be shunned aside with a "vociferous minority". These are the thoughts of sensible people (whom I and my comrades have many political disagreements with) who have put a clear, coherent and principled position forward that resonates with many people on the island.

All you need to do is have a read through some of the submissions that have recommended keeping the Constables and see what democratic reasons they give for that position. You won't find any. People like our Chief Minister didn't even talk about democracy and how the Constables provide it. Then we had people like Deputy Sean Power who's submission was just laughable (I quote "I can't understand why people think having the Constables in the States is undemocratic", try looking at the numbers Sean...). Their argument for keeping the Constables in the States is NOT based on democracy. And why should our Electoral Commission even be considering arguments that aren't based on democracy?

But anyway, what does it matter if there is majority public support for or against the Constables remaining in the States? That's not the point. There are plenty of things that there is probably majority public support for (e.g. capital punishment, banning burqas, etc), but we don't accept those things because they are not compatible with the broader principles of democracy. Democracy isn't about just doing what the majority wants every time, because that leads to a dictatorship of the majority against the minority. Democracy is about everyone being equal and nobody being oppressed.

The fact is, having Constables is undemocratic and oppressive. The worst part of Brights comments is "and no compelling reason why there should be." Obviously Bright doesn't consider democracy to be a compelling reason. After all, it's not like hundreds of thousands of men and woman have fought and died for our freedom and democracy, hardly compelling at all!

All sarcasm aside, it really does not take a genius to realise that Jerseys system is far from democratic in a way that would be considered acceptable in the western world. It is undemocratic for a Constable who represents 1,600 people to have the same say as one who represents 30,000 people. One of those fundamental principles of democracy is the concept that everyone's vote should be equal and that is just not possible with the Constables in the States because their mandates vary too much. That is a compelling reason for their removal, and it would take a very strong counter-argument to that point to necessitate it's compromise.

So what arguments does he offer?

"Each of the 12 parish heads is uniquely well placed to understand and act upon the views and needs of the local communities he or she serves."

Well no, there is nothing "unique" about it because each Parish also has a Deputy. And that Deputies primary job is to reflect the views of their constituents in the States Chamber, whereas that is the Constables secondary job. So it's not a unique position, and anyway, who says they do that effectively? The Constables have constantly voted in favour of GST and against exemptions etc. If they were listening to their communities they would have voted the opposite way because it is a tax that hurts the least well off amongst us. The main opposition to things like GST comes from the ranks of the Deputies who will do the bulk of constituent work.

"Moreover, the life experience and general common sense of the Constables provide an important balancing factor"

Whether the Constables have general common sense is entirely debatable and to proclaim it as some sort of accepted orthodoxy is just ridiculous. The Constables are mere mortals like anyone else and are totally capable of being utter morons (not saying they are of course!). They're not exempt by virtue of their office.

"their removal would probably deal an ultimately fatal blow to the parish structure on which so much of Jersey’s special identity and community spirit depends."

I just don't get this point. If the Parish system is so fragile that it can't exist without being put on life support by the States, how can it be something that's worth keeping?

My answer to that is that it isn't fragile and people like Bright clearly have no faith in the Parish system, whereas I have tonnes of it. The Parish system will exist as long as people want it to. Do they honestly think that people are going to say "oh, my Constable isn't in the States any more? Well now I can't be bothered to go help volunteer with our Battle of Flowers float!". Of course the Parish system will survive. It will survive because the system itself has significant merit.

In fact, there is everything to suggest that the Parish system would be strengthened by that cut from central government. It would fundamentally change the role of the Constable into a non-political one, which would do wonders for the position! More people would come forward for the role and they wouldn't split opinions by having to vote on controversial States matters.

Okay, it's an honorary position without pay, but maybe we should get over that and let them take remuneration from the Parish rates? That seems only fair to me.

And finally -

"If the key question, then, is how well the Constables serve and reflect their electorates, the answer must be: very."

Nonsense.

Last week former Deputy Daniel Wimberly published his research that he had done into the work that each category of States Member does (remember that? That's the research that you and I asked the EC to do, but they said no). The media has, in my opinion, done a poor job at reporting it and has given significant time to his opposers whom haven't actually read his research and have been caricaturing his position in their rebuttals without those interviewing them catching them up on it.

His research was dynamite.

It proved what we all knew from the start - the Constables do very little in the States.

In terms of contributions to debates, questions asked, propositions lodged etc, the Constables do very little. This is irrefutable fact (http://www.electoralcommission.je/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Wimberley-Daniel-3-Appendix-1.pdf) that cannot be denied.

I had a small part in helping Daniel compile his research and statistics and it became very apparent to me very quickly as I was going through States records that I was very rarely scrolling up to put a tick next to a Constables name when I found a proposition one had put forward.

Now this isn't actually a criticism of the Constables. Who am I to tell them they don't work hard? It isn't my place to suggest such a thing. I'm sure they do work very hard. But if they do, it's in their Parishes, not the States Chamber (and that is entirely appropriate). All the more reason for us to sever the link and allow them to focus on their important Parish work.

In terms of value for money as States Members, we do not get our moneys worth from the Constables.

Do they represent their electorates? Well in each Parish, they may well do. But for the island, by definition they can't, because the level of representation is skewed. So it is just factually inaccurate to say they are representative of Jersey. And since it is the Parliament of Jersey we are talking about, it is Jersey we should be focusing on, not a collection of 12 Parishes.

So please folks, don't fall for the propaganda of the JEP. Read alternative points of view (Deputy Tadiers video statement), read the facts (Daniels research) and make up your own mind!



I'll end with sharing something that I found really interesting. Did you know that in the States of Guernsey only 4 members were elected with less than 1,000 votes, and not a single one was elected without fighting an election? In our States, 28 (that's more than half!) were elected with less than 1,000 votes, 11 of them without facing an election at all.


I think that says enough.


Also, I recently hit a landmark in my "view counts" since starting this blog which has made me reflect on how this whole experiment has gone this year. I just want to make the point that I really am grateful for all the support that many of you offer me, for all the people that stop me in the street to say nice things, and also for those that offer genuine and thoughtful constructive criticism which I do try to take on board!

It really means a lot!

Cheers :)
Sam

Daniels research -

http://www.electoralcommission.je/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Wimberley-Daniel-3-Appendix-1.pdf

http://www.electoralcommission.je/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Wimberley-Daniel-3-Appendix-4.pdf

http://www.electoralcommission.je/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Wimberley-Daniel-3-Appendix-6.pdf

Plus two excel spreadsheets that can be downloaded by scrolling to 25th August. They're appendixes 2,3 and 5. - http://www.electoralcommission.je/current-submissions/


Also, I wrote to the JEP based on this blog post -

I write following the astounding article by Chris Bright on the 3rd September (ironically titled "Democracy, not just efficiency") in which the editor informed us of some things we can expect to see in the Electoral Commissions proposition. Since Senator Bailhache (on the Electoral Commission website) and Colin Storm (at an Electoral Commission hearing) have both dismissed the article and said that nothing has been discussed by the commission yet, does the editor wish to apologise to the public of Jersey for writing a misleading article on a false premise, or would he instead defend his article and condemn Senator Bailhache and Colin Storm for being untruthful?

But on the subject of the article itself, the assertion that opposition to the Constables comes from a vociferous minority is simply untrue. If one takes the time to examine the submissions on the Electoral Commissions website, you will very quickly find that actually a clear majority of submitters wish for the Constables to leave the States. And those arguments saying such, are distinct from all other submissions in that they are the most articulate, the most considered and uniquely led by a clear philosophy of thought and principle of democracy (unlike our Chief Ministers submission).

The article also said there was no "compelling reason" for the removal of the Constables. But I think most in the island would consider Democracy to be a compelling reason, given the fact countless brave men and women have fought and died for democracy, which includes the fundamental principle of each vote being equal (something that is impossible if the Constables remain in the States).

It's often said (by those with an agenda) that the opposition to the Constables just comes from self interested "Lefties". But what is quite unusual about the cause for the removal of the Constables is that support actually comes from all sides of the political spectrum. Former Senator Horsfall and current Constable Norman have both put excellent and principled arguments against the Constables in the States, and neither of them can possibly be dismissed as part of a "vociferous minority" with the Left. Horsfall talked about a "democracy test" and Constable Norman repeatedly used the phrase "democratic principle". And they are joined in their view by Ed Le Quesne and John Hemming, who are both staunch supporters of the Parish system (thus doing away with the argument that somehow it would be the end of the Parish system if the Constables weren't distracted from their Parishes by the States).

Instead of propagandistically dismissing these people's legitimate opinions, can we not have a media that does it's job by effectively by putting both arguments across properly?

Sam Mézec

An abysmal performance from our Chief Minister Re: Electoral Reform

This morning I attended an Electoral Commission hearing to view the submission by Chief Minister Senator Gorst. He was the only one being interviewed for some reason, and the announcement of the hearing was made very last minute the day before.

I was hoping that I could report back on it with some glimmers of hope, some interesting suggestions and views, but I was utterly disappointed and I very much regret that I have to write such a negative blog post today. I honestly do try my best to like Senator Gorst and because I love Jersey I wish for him to succeed. After all, the alternative is infinitely worse. But time after time he falls below my expectations and I have to denounce him. His submission was completely underwhelming, incoherent and inconsistent. It was frankly painful to watch, especially hearing the sniggering coming from the viewing gallery when he said things that were just so manifestly absurd.

To be fair to the Senator, he got off to a reasonably good start. He addressed the problems that there is with reform in Jersey, based around the fact that there are the self interests of the members wanting to retain their seats, as well as the political perspectives interests in wanting to make sure people of various wings take an electoral advantage. He even acknowledged that there is a perception that the Constables are effectively a conservative ("some small c's, some big C's") block. But that is where the positives ended.

From then on, his ramblings were simply incoherent and he never laid out in straight terms exactly what it was he was proposing for Jersey, and instead took time to talk about each category and analysed it in turn. This is the totally wrong approach to electoral reform. Your starting point has to be the principles and the values behind what you are doing, because that lays down a purpose for what you are doing and sets out the criteria that you must adhere to. You build your democracy on top of the principles and values you hold. You don't simply change a system that was not built with democracy in mind and hope that it'll work democratically. You are better off starting with a blank canvass.

Lets not forget, what is the actual reason we are having this whole debate in the first place? It is Democracy. This isn't meant to be a PR exercise to make politicians look good (if it is, it's failing miserably), it is to find a solution to make Jersey more democratic. And so I took a tally to see how many times Senator Gorst used the word "democracy" in his submission. The number was precisely 0. He appeared to have absolutely no grasp on what he was actually there for. How on Earth can anyone make a sensible suggestion on electoral reform if they haven't got a clue on the context and philosophy behind it?

He stated his support for the retention of the position of Senator. A reasonable position that I have no quarrel with. But he seemed to suggest that an idea for their retention should be in the form of an upper chamber (I wonder where he got that idea?). And when he was pressed on that question, he declared that he wanted to make no comment over election or appointment. How inconsistent could he be? If the Senators are fundamental because of their mandate, then you have to comment on election or appointment, because it should be fundamental to the whole purpose of what he is suggesting. Thankfully some commission members appeared to realise this, but to my disappointment, they were totally impotent in any meaningful scrutiny of his suggestions. Had I been on the panel, I would have relished the chance to take his proposition apart bit by bit and show how little thought and logic there was in it. But instead, after a mild rebuke, they carried on. Maybe this was because they didn't want to embarrass him because of his high office (that's never stopped me!).

I completely denounce this suggestion that we have an upper chamber. It is nothing more than a silly compromise to try and keep either the Senators, or the Constables in a form that maintains their hegemony in policy when they are completely unnecessary. Senator Gorst talked about the history of reform at the beginning of his remarks, but he completely ignores the fact that the direction of history has been pointed towards more accountability, not less. An upper chamber is a step backwards. Fancy that, this paradox that when the country is debating having an elected upper chamber, we in Jersey are entertaining the thought of possibly having an appointed chamber! It's just unreal.

After this, he went on to talk about the position of the Constables. This is where it just descends into silliness. Aside from the usual nonsense about how the Parishes provide a vital link to the States (as if that is somehow necessary...) and that the Constables are wise and respected (two words - Saddie Rennard), he said that the Parish system would fall apart if they were not in the States. I completely refute this as I think them being in the States actually harms their position, but if I'm wrong and it will diminish the role... so what? If the parish system can only survive on life support by the States, then it just isn't worth keeping. If it's such a wonderful system it will survive because of it's use. Such a suggestion just proves that they are desperate.

Perhaps the funniest (if also saddest) part of the interview was when he said "the Parish system makes Jersey what it is", which prompted a comment from a member of the public "what, feudal?" which summed up perfectly how much of a stupid thing it was to say. You either have democracy, or you have the Constables. You cannot have both. That is simply a fact.

As if that wasn't enough, he then went on to say that the deputies had to be changed because of different districts and constituencies varying in size and population there was a democratic deficit that couldn't be maintained... But hang on, how on Earth does that not apply even more so to the Constables?! You couldn't make it up. The democratic deficit is unacceptable for the Deputies, but it's A-okay for the Constables?

He was asked how he'd like to see the new boundaries for Deputies worked out, particularly if he would like an independent boundary commission. He responded that he would rather not have one, to which Deputy Tadier tweeted "Does he want a partisan one?", which I couldn't have put any better. If you are after democracy, the boundaries have to be decided independently, otherwise you get gerrymandering.

But one of the biggest points of hypocrisy and inconsistency was when he stated at one point that he agreed with the Clothier recommendation of 42 or 44 States Members (this sort of cherry picking of the Clothier Report is exactly why it failed), without a hint of irony shortly after he had talked about the problem many States Members have of not being able to spend enough time studying legislation. How exactly does reducing the number of members help this problem? Surely it just makes it worse?

Finally, there was not a single word on voter systems. It didn't even come up. Despite it being crucial to deciding who represents each district and there is no consensus at all on First Past the Post, you'd have thought it would be something to consider.


And here is where I will get dismissed for conspiracy theories... Senator Gorsts performance today (for that is what it was) was just his turn to toe the party line and argue for what Bailhache has probably decided months ago would be the outcome, as a way of making it appear legitimate. The coincidences were too great, and no individual who had actually taken time to think through their position would have made so many school-boy errors as he did. He just went up, knowing what the desired outcome is, and tried, and failed, to adumbrate it as he'd agreed to do.

This is exactly why it is so important for people to take heed of what Reform Jersey has said, and write to the commission to make it obvious to any independent observer that these sorts of ridiculous recommendations by those in power are not what the public want. If we roll over and let them get away with it, we will suffer the consequences for decades to come.

I really do apologise for the undiplomatic, uncompromising and strong tone of this post, but you really should have been there. It is so difficult to say anything other than what I have said after such an abysmal display.


After the brief comment I made on the submission from the Constable of St Peters, I intend to petition for a Parish Assembly in St Saviours in the next few days. Stay tuned for more info!


Sam

My interview with the Electoral Commission

I've received an advance copy of the transcript of my interview with the Electoral Commission, which is posted below.

Tomorrow (Wednesday 8th August) the Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst is being interviewed by the commission at 10am in the Blampied Room in the States building (through the entrance to the Royal Court) which is open for the public to view. I'll be going and will do a write up after if anything of interest is said.

After that, on the 17th August at 10am at St Pauls Centre, Reform Jersey member Daniel Wimberley and Deputy Pitman (who made a great submission from the floor at the Reform Jersey meeting last week) will be giving evidence. So that is one not to be missed.

I'd also want to draw attention to the submission of the Constable of St Peter "on behalf of the parishioners" which can be viewed here - http://www.electoralcommission.je/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Refault-Connetable-John-on-behalf-of-parishioners-of-St-Peter.pdf

He has suggested, as a small number of others have too, that there should only be 12 deputies, one for each Parish.

This is one of the most absurd propositions that I have seen submitted. Jersey is not a parochial society, it is a collection of just under 100,000 individuals, each of whom has their own independent views, irrespective of where they live in the island. The idea that we can chop the island up into 12 unequal districts and give them each the same say is fundamentally ridiculous and undemocratic. It's essentially gerrymandering.

I hope a sensible resident of St Peters reads this and writes to the commission saying how the Constable does not speak on your behalf and how his suggestions are simply fanciful.

The only solution fit for Jersey is one where every single islander is treated equally and fairly. That means -

1. Each States Member should represent the same number of people.

2. The system should be simple.

3. Each voter should have the same number of votes.

So get writing and make this point!

Sam

_________________________________________________________________________________

STATES OF JERSEY

Electoral Commission

MONDAY, 16th JULY 2012

Panel:

Senator P.M. Bailhache (Chairman)

Mr. C. Storm (Vice-Chairman)

Deputy J.P.G. Baker of St. Helier

Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary

Professor E. Sallis

Dr. J. Renouf

Witness:

Mr. S. Mezec

[11:17]

Senator P.M. Bailhache:

Come and take a seat.

Mr. S. Mezec:

Thanks very much for having me.

Senator P.M. Bailhache:

Mr. Mezec, thank you very much for your submission first of all, or your 2 submissions.  I think you have probably already had a reply to the first one asking us to do various pieces of research.  Have you had a reply to that or not?

Mr. S. Mezec:

Yes.

Senator P.M. Bailhache:

You have.  So that is the Commission’s position on that.  But thank you very much for your detailed points that you make in your second submission and we would like to ask you to draw our attention to any points that you think are particularly important or add to it in any way that you would like to do.

Mr. S. Mezec:

Okay, well for me I think the most important part is the preamble because that sort of sets the context ahead for any decision that is going to be made under these 4 things that are being considered.  I start by talking about the actual word “democracy” and where it originates from and my Greek friend tells me that it means demos kratos which means people and power.  That is pretty much the best definition I think you can get for democracy.  It is the process by which the people are empowered to govern the society they live in and so whenever you are proceeding to make any decisions on how the democratic process works, what it is consisted of and how the executive is made up and all that, the question you need to be asking at every single point is are the people empowered through this.  Does this reflect this idea of the people having power, this demos kratos, this democracy?  So when you look at various electoral systems you can see little nooks and crannies that are in there to make sure they are as representative as they possibly can be.  When you look at Jersey ... the whole reason this commission is being had is because there are lots of things in the Jersey system that are not quite in line with that idea of the demos kratos of people having power.  The main point that obviously a lot of time has been dedicated from the previous 2 speakers has been the fact that in certain parts of the Island votes are not the same because of populations having more representation, some parts having less representation, some people having more votes than others, some people only having one vote.  That sort of leads to an end which is not satisfactory at all because it is just not representative.  People are not represented across the Island for their views, they are represented for where they are from and that is not really the best way to be conducting things in a 21st century democracy, you want to have the legislature made up of the right percentages of people for what their views are compared to what the views are there in the real world.  So my conclusion, I think, just very briefly, bullet points, what I think the most democratic system that Jersey could possibly have, that would be practical and workable as well and that is simply to have one type of States Members, each States Member represents the same number of people, each person has the same number of votes and for the number of States Members ... I have not given an arbitrary number and I do not think it is right to give a specific number until it is looked into properly how many we could have while all the functions of government and opposition can be effectively carried out.  So there is no under representation on any of those parts and whatever that number ends up being would be the suitable one in my opinion and whether that ends up being 42, whether it ends up being 48, or even ... unlikely, but if it ended up 60, you know, it would have to be that if that meant all of the positions were able to be filled and carried out effectively.

Senator P.M. Bailhache:

Can I interrupt you just to try to clarify which you think is the most important.  I am just harking back to your point that votes are not the same and there are really 2 issues there, are there not?  There is the question of how many votes each individual elector has and there is a question of how many voters are represented by each elected representative.  Which is most important, do you think?

Mr. S. Mezec:

I would say very slightly the latter, how many people each States Member represents but I do not want to play down the significance of the other point as well.  I think that is just as important as well because you can have a position in St. Helier where one constituency, they have 4 votes for their Deputies and in other places you only have one vote for Deputy, that can sort of leave room for certain points of view ... within the constituency the majority ... therefore votes are more likely to be just replicated of each of their votes.  If somebody in St. Helier No. 4 who is conservative, or of that political persuasion, therefore votes are just going to be for conservatives - I mean small “c” conservative obviously - and everybody else in that constituency, if the majority of people agree with them and vote for conservatives then that parish will be represented by 4 conservatives, even though maybe it was only 60 per cent of the people, the other 40 per cent may have been socialists and given all 4 of their votes to socialists.  So you end up having ... you are represented entirely by conservatives when there is a significant percentage that would have gone for somebody else instead. 

Senator P.M. Bailhache:

In the absence of party politics, how do you solve the problem?

Mr. S. Mezec:

My overall view was it would end up being closer to super constituencies where people have weighted votes, everybody had the same number of votes across the Island and the constituencies were drawn up on a population basis and that way people could vote ... well, they could use all of their votes happily for a start, they would not be worried about giving their third and fourth vote to people who they were only 50 per cent on, whereas there were other candidates who they were 70 or 80 per cent on and that would fix it across the Island where everybody ... the ideal situation would be for every States Member to be elected Island-wide and then the percentages would work in terms of representation, but then that obviously have the practicality issues and whether you can reconcile that with having a general election day and all that.  So I think having the super constituencies would be as close to having Island-wide as possible.  We could go for each single member constituency for a 45 or whatever, but then you end up like in the U.K. (United Kingdom) it is possible to get an overall majority in the Parliament without having a majority of votes.  It has happened a few times.  In 1974 was one occasion.  So James mentioned having S.T.V. (single transferable vote), I think that would probably be the best way of sorting out in super constituencies.

Professor E. Sallis:

Would the super constituencies have a parish base or would you just divide the Island, I do not know, in quarters or in fifths or something?

Mr. S. Mezec:

I think that is a good question.  In Jersey people identify with the parishes a lot.  When you ask someone where they live, they do not say: “I live in the northeast”, they say: “I live in this parish, I live in that parish.”  So if there is a way for it to be drawn up around the parish borders then that would be convenient and that would hopefully be practical.  The only thing to reconcile that with is the population.  I would say the population issue does come first.  You cannot have a system where parishes are there just because they are parishes, the important issue is getting the population ... when I was doing some reading for this, I came across a proposition that was put forward in the States a couple of years ago and it had a chart in it.  I wish I had printed it off, I only got to the Island yesterday.  I might print it off and send it to you, but it had a suggestion, it was not binding or anything it was a suggestion, of how the parishes could be grouped together where their populations would work out as being roughly the same and I do not see a reason why that could not be used.

Professor E. Sallis:

We have had people, though, who have suggested something similar, that the problem is let us say you put together, I do not know, St. Peter and St. Brelade - just for argument’s sake - and then you end up not electing anybody from St. Peter because the majority of the population is St. Brelade.  Would you think get people in St. Peter saying: “We do not have representation any longer, the bigger parish has overwhelmed us” do you see that as a problem or not?

Mr. S. Mezec:

I would hope not.  Because you do end up in situations like the U.K. where you can get a Scottish person standing in England or vice versa.  I would hope that people would look at the district and say: “I am representing a district.”  Because it is based around parishes but not based around the parish, the singular, it is based around several parishes so when people would stand they would presumably have a manifesto that would cover issues that include the other parishes.  No person standing in St. Brelade would want to cut off the electorate from St. Peter, would they?  They would want to ...

Professor E. Sallis:

Well, we would hope not.

Mr. S. Mezec:

Yes, exactly.  They would presumably want to be as inclusive of the whole district and so I would have thought for their own electoral reasons they would not want to cut off the other parish.  So I would not see it as being that much of a problem hopefully?

Dr. J. Renouf:

I am interested, you mentioned the parish system and people’s identity with the parishes.  Do you think that is as powerful a draw amongst say your generation as it is in the population as a whole?

Mr. S. Mezec:

Not at all.  To be perfectly honest.  I think when younger people like myself look at Jersey politics, they are looking at issues that affect everybody because ... I went to Hautlieu School, which does not have a specific catchment area.  So I went to school with people who are from all across the Island and when people were talking about Jersey, they were not talking about issues that were just based around one parish, they were talking about issues that were Island-wide.  When I was at school the big debate was on G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax) because that was happening at that time.  That is not a parish issue.  You do not need a specific parish representative to put forward the parish’s view on an Island-wide issue like G.S.T.  St. Martin is not going to be worse off if it does not have someone to put forward the St. Martin because parishes are not homogeneous.  Everybody has got their own point of view and so the bigger the districts are, you will be more likely to be inclusive of the different points of view rather than the majority of each individual parish being the only thing that has its view put forward.  One parish might have 49 per cent of people in favour of one thing, 51 per cent in another and because there is only one Constable then only that 51 per cent view is going to get put forward.

Senator P.M. Bailhache:

Sorry, I did not understand that.  Why would a larger constituency be more homogeneous than a parish?

Mr. S. Mezec:

I would not, it would be more diverse.  If there were ...

Senator P.M. Bailhache:

That is the opposite, is it not?

Mr. S. Mezec:

What do you mean as in ...?

Senator P.M. Bailhache:

Diversity as opposed to homogeneity.

Mr. S. Mezec:

Well, yes, there are going to be people in every area that are going to have different views and so if there is ...

Senator P.M. Bailhache:

I understand the point that you are making but a parish consists of a whole lot of people with different views, I would have thought exactly the same thing applies to a larger constituency.

[11:30]

Mr. S. Mezec:

Yes, of course it will, but there will be more representatives in the large constituency.  In a single parish like St. Mary where they only have one Constable and one Deputy, whereas if it were as super constituency they would have 6 or 8 or however many it would be, and so because each person would get in with a percentage they would not have to get 51 per cent if it were a 2 person race.  You could get in with 20 per cent or you could get in with 30 per cent.  That would correlate with what the views are within that district because it is multi member.  So you would have ... especially if it was weighed voting as well, you would be more likely to have a diverse set of candidates come forward, but then there would probably be ... there would end up being majorities for one point of view.  You know, if 60 percent of people in one super constituency were of one persuasion, then as long as they mark their ballots accordingly to that and 60 per cent of the winners would get that and 40 per cent would represent the other view.  Most people consider the Senatorial elections to be the most democratic on the Island because it is multi member and people have the same amount of votes across the Island and so people can gather what the mood is of the Island as a whole by looking at the Senatorial results a lot better than they can by looking at one small district or one parish.  I have said before that has practicality difficulties so having the super constituencies is a sort of halfway point there.  It is going to be more representative because it covers a larger population and so it is as close to an Island-wide system as you can get but still being practical is what I think.

Mr. C. Storm:

In your conclusions you talk about the introduction of a weighted system.  What do you mean by that?

Mr. S. Mezec:

It is similar to what James was saying before, the S.T.V.  I think I mention it in my submission, at the last Senatorial election I only used one of my votes because I had one candidate who I liked a lot and I had 3 or 4 who I quite liked, but then I looked at it and thought: “Well, if I am in the first past the post system like what we have now I would be pretty upset if my first choice was beaten by my fourth choice by a couple of votes, i.e. pushed back into fifth, I would be quite upset by that because each of my votes on the ballot paper is worth the same”, whereas in my head they are not all worth the same.  I do have preferences and so I would prefer a system where you can have a second preference vote like you can in mayoralty elections in the U.K.  One option is a list system but I think that might be a bit too difficult when there are not parties in Jersey.  I think when the A.V. (Alternative Vote) debate was going on the U.K. there was a suggestion about A.V. plus for the U.K., which was the same principle but instead of small constituencies it was in regions of the U.K.  So that would be similar to Jersey because it would be districts, so that is sort of like the regions here.  Then on the ballot paper you rank them in order of preference and so if your favourite one does not get in and, you know, does not even come close they disregard that vote and go for your second preference instead.  So you are more likely to have ... so minority views are not getting pushed aside just because they are at 20 per cent instead of 49 per cent or something like that.

Mr. C. Storm:

Some people who have been talking to us and writing to us have been looking at the frustration some people feel with the number of commissioners and recommendations and examinations that have come forward without their being anything substantial coming out of those processes.  Therefore some people have suggested that this commission should consider an evolutionary process rather than a radical process, in other words, one bite at a time, which could lead to the whole process dragging on a little bit and, as I said before, other people recommend that a radical approach to change, where would you stand on that?

Mr. S. Mezec:

Are we talking about ending at the same place, just having a transitional process?

Mr. C. Storm:

Yes, absolutely.

Mr. S. Mezec:

My answer to that is, is that best way to empower people?  Is that going to maintain enough stability so that we encounter problems along the way and can fix them before we reach the final point?  Because you could change everything all in one go and then find yourself with a States Assembly that is just not working at all because one little point was missed out or one eventuality was not considered.  So there would be merits in that.  I hope that the Commission puts forward something that is good enough to work first time around, though.  So I could see that as hopefully being the result.  If it is done as soon as possible to get to the democratic ...

Mr. C. Storm:

Particularly given the history that we have been through.

Mr. S. Mezec:

Yes, exactly.

Mr. C. Storm:

Right, thank you.

Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:

Can I just ask about something you touched on very briefly about the general election?  Do you think the move to a general election was significant and would you like to see that retained?

Mr. S. Mezec:

Technically we have not had it yet because half of the Senators were not elected at the last elections, so people referred to that as a general election but ...

The Connétable of St. Mary:

Well, a single election day.

Mr. S. Mezec:

Yes, it was a single election day but not all the Members were up for election.  I think it is part of that demos kratos, that people’s power, that everybody should be elected on the same day because if you end up with a government that is incredibly unpopular in the Island and the people are desperate to get rid of, you have to be able to get rid of them in one go, you cannot get rid of half of them and then have to wait 3 years for the other half of them.  My friend, James, talked about stability and I have used the metaphor in mine about the iceberg.  If you are heading towards an iceberg stability is irrelevant, you do not want stability, you want to be able to change course as quickly as you can, and so if there were a circumstance in Jersey where people were very unhappy with the government and needed to get rid of it as quickly as possible, then there would have to be a mechanism for empowering the people so that they can pass that verdict on their government and get rid of it in favour of a new one.

Senator P.M. Bailhache:

The real solution to that is party politics, is it not?

Mr. S. Mezec:

Yes, I agree, absolutely.  My friends who spoke before have agreed with that.  I personally think that party politics is the most democratic way of people having their say but then I completely accept that is not exactly something that can be legislated for.  That has to be a grass roots things.  But I see it is feasible in Jersey and I see it as being completely ... I think Jersey would pull it off very well if we did get around to it.  I mentioned in my submission Gibraltar, and Gibraltar is a place ... I know you went to Guernsey to have a look, I would recommend a trip to Gibraltar as well.  If you time it right you might even have some good weather.  But as a jurisdiction I did some reading on it and I think they have got a lot of things right in their political system, they had an absolutely huge turnout at the last election.  Just by accident I happened to come across on YouTube the actual recording of their election results broadcast, and because it is a small place it was all in their town hall and all of the party leaders took it up in turns to thank each other and it was very civil thing.  The candidates did have their differences but it is not like the U.K. where a lot of the differences can be very nasty.  People in one party can make really cheap points against another and I know that would not be popular in Jersey and frankly I would not wish it on anybody to be honest, but what they had in Gibraltar looked, I think, something that would be great in Jersey.  Their last election, their Conservative Government was thrown out in favour of the Socialist Party, after the Conservative Government being in power for something like 16 or 17 years.  So that showed that the people of Gibraltar had had a governing party that they liked so much that they kept for however many years, but the times moved on and they decided they wanted a change and they had a mechanism that enabled them to do that swiftly, effectively and there was no nastiest about it either.  All the parties do still work with each other very closely but it is clear the public wanted to give one group a mandate to govern and they are the people that are doing it and I think that would be the best solution for Jersey.

The Connétable of St. Mary:

The reason I asked you about the single day is you said about the Island-wide vote and although I struggled to imagine a feasible way of doing this, you have had some contributors who have said the way to do it is an Island-wide vote and simply you will do it, so many elected every year on a rolling basis, but you would reject that, would you?

Mr. S. Mezec:

Yes, I do like the idea of Island-wide voting but it goes back to my overall point of the demos kratos and people power, and one of the fundamental powers that they need to have is to be able to get rid of government and they have to be able to do that in one go.  I think that is so important that it outweighs the Island-wide voting, especially when the super constituencies I see are something that could be almost as good.  But then it has the other benefits that I think make it better than having an Island-wide done every couple of years.

The Connétable of St. Mary:

If I could continue then.  I just wanted to check with you about the parish role because you have said that you do not think removing the Constables from the States would detract from the position of the Constable - and I think it was James who also mentioned the importance of the parish - do you think it would be possible to maintain the parish system long-term if there was a ...

Mr. S. Mezec:

I think often having Constables in the States can be divisive and, in my opinion, it does harm because I have had Constables that I think have done a very good job at running the parish but I have been so angry at how they have voted in the States and so when it comes to my election time I look at their manifestos and I just find it so difficult because I might like one thing that they have done in the parish and that to me is what the Constables should be doing.  But I have been annoyed at what they have done in the States and so it makes it harder to decide who to vote for.  Personally I think if the Constables are removed from the States I think the position would be a lot better because you could end up getting people who are standing on a specific platform and specific parish issues, people who are lot less ... they are not going to have a problem if say somebody is in favour of one thing in the parish but is in favour of raising G.S.T. to 25 per cent.  Some people might think that is a great idea but a lot of people think it is a terrible idea, even though their parish policies are great they cannot vote for them because they have that moral reason to not like what they are going to be putting forward in the States.  So I think that with the 2 roles separated you would also get more people coming forward for the position of Constable because a lot of people are attached to their parish, they like living in the parish, they like being a part of the community there but they would not like the idea of being a States Member, they would not like the scrutiny that goes with that from the public, a lot of the disdain that a lot of people have for that position, for being in the States and voting on things sometimes that controversial and unpopular, whereas in the parish I think people would like their Constables a lot more personally, and I think that would be a good thing for us to get on with our Constables a lot better.  I think it would strengthen both institutions, the States and parish.

Mr. C. Storm:

A question we have asked other people who have come along, if given the choice of only having one of your recommendations that you would put forward would you be prepared to say which one you would choose?

Mr. S. Mezec:

I have made it clear in my submission that I think the biggest mistake the Commission could make would be to leave the Constables in the States, not just for the reasons that I have just outlined about how I think it would strengthen the Constables’ position but the Constables being in the States with their parish boundaries is irreconcilable with democracy at the end of the day because the number of voters for each different parish just varies by too much that it is just undemocractic.  Unless St. Helier was given 10 Constables or unless we had more Constables ...

Dr. J. Renouf:

It is an unruly place, after all.

Mr. S. Mezec:

Exactly.  That is the main thing.  The important thing is everybody having an equal vote and the Constables are the biggest obstacle to that, and I think it is bad for their position as well.  So I think it is a win/win situation removing them from the States in my opinion.  The compromise that I would make is to let them be like the Dean of Jersey who is allowed to speak in the States but is not allowed to take on any roles or allowed to vote.  That would be a compromise that I think would be tolerable.  So I think that is important to be on the table as well.

Dr. J. Renouf:

The Upper House idea?

Mr. S. Mezec:

My friend, James, has put an eloquent case forward but I am not convinced it is necessary to be honest.  I think Jersey could be fine with one Chamber.  So long as we do not have too few Members.  If the number of Members were cut by a large amount in the main Chamber in the States then there might be a reason to have it but so long as we keep a sensible number in the main Chamber, I do not see it as necessary.

Senator P.M. Bailhache:

Could I just press you a little bit on S.T.V. because I think different people mean different things by S.T.V.  You said you cast only one vote in the Senatorial elections.  Do you envisage that you would have a system whereby you would have, in the last election for example, 4 votes to cast and you could cast them all for one candidate, or do you mean by S.T.V. that you would rank your candidates ...

Mr. S. Mezec:

Ranking, I think, yes.  Because you may have 2 candidates who you really like and third one who you almost like as much and if you had your 4 votes but could give them all to one candidate I think that might skew things a little bit.  I think it would be better to have it ranking.  There might be a candidate who 80 per cent of the electorate quite like and would have happily have there but there just happens to be more candidates who smaller numbers of people really like and so would give them the vote. 

[11:45]

I think that person who is quite liked by a lot of people might have a more reason to be the one that is elected because of the more generic support they have across parish, so I think a weighted system where you put 1, 2, 3, 4 or whatever on your ballot paper would be the best one.

Senator P.M. Bailhache:

Thank you very much, Mr. Mezec, is there anything else before you leave the chair that you would like to ...

Mr. S. Mezec:

The one thing that was sort of connected to the first letter I sent and it is line with this demos kratos idea of people being empowered, I would like to see that as much information as possible is out there.  Objective information, statistics and facts and things like that to be on the website or sent out in leaflets like the original one that was sent out to every household.  Just so people are as informed as possible because an ignorant group of people are not going to make a good decision if they do not the facts around them.  So I really think it is important for the Commission to dedicate some time, either themselves or delegate to another body to do a substantial amount of research on things like what class of Member puts forward the most propositions, what class of Member takes up the most important positions of responsibility and what parts of the Island contribute.  Objective statistics could come from that that I think would be really important for people just to know so that when they are making an informed decision they can look at what the best way to empower themselves would be and I think the quality of submissions would be good if people had that information.  That is just my one interim recommendation that maybe interim reports are put out about various findings that are gathered.  Just so people are as informed as possible when they make their submissions.  I think that is really important.

Senator P.M. Bailhache:

Thank you very much indeed.

Mr. S. Mezec:

Great, thanks very much.

[11:46]

Reform Jersey - A Review

Well first things first, thank you very much to everyone that attended our meeting on Monday. We were really pleased with the turn out (around a hundred people) and everyone really seemed to respond to what we had to say. The Electoral Commission sent an officer there to take notes and relay what was said to the members.

Videos are posted below of the main speeches from the panel.

I ended the night by reminding everyone there that the whole purpose of Reform Jersey was to create pressure from the people to the politicians to make it politically impossible for our voices to be ignored. The purpose of a political process is to empower the people, and we shouldn't need the consent of anyone when it comes to that empowerment. So it is up to the people to make it clear what they expect of this Electoral Commission and not let them get away with giving us anything less than what we deserve.

One member of the public who asked a question said "how much of a say do we actually have?" to which I responded that we have as much of a say as we choose to. If we all forget about it, this will blow over and nothing will change. If we all write in to the commission, and demand those three democratic principles, we cannot be ignored.

So please, write to the Electoral Commission (at ec@gov.je) and demand from them an electoral system that is fair for the people of Jersey. Every politician must represent the same number of people, the system must be simple and every person must have the same number of votes. This is the only way to make Jerseys system truly democratic.

My understanding is that the commission intends to release a preliminary recommendation later in the year before going across the island to hear the views of the public and decide on amendments. So I suspect that our next major push will be around that time to engage the commission depending on their preliminary recommendations.

In the meantime we will work to encourage as many people as possible to write to the commission demanding those democratic principles. So please make sure you do write in. They'll accept any submission, whether it's pages and pages or just a few lines, so don't worry about how it's formatted. If you just want to write in and say "I agree with Reform Jersey's proposition" feel free! If you want to write something and contact us to have a read and offer our thoughts, we are happy to do so.

So please comrades, get active and get writing, it's up to you!

Cheers,

Sam

My speech -

Deputy Le Herissier's speech -




James Rondel's speech -




Daniel Wimberley's speech -




Some contributions from the audience -

Nick Le Cornu -



Deputy Tadier -

Reform Jersey

So, the time has come to officially announce the formation of a pressure group "Reform Jersey" to campaign for meaningful electoral reform in Jersey.

Reform Jersey is a non-politically affiliated group that is seeking to promote a united vision for reform in Jersey and actively engage with people across the island and encourage them to take part in the reform process so that their voices are heard and we make the Electoral Commission deliver on their promise for reform.

Reform Jersey believes that it is fundamental that any reform of the composition of the States Assembly must encompass these three principles:

1. Each States Member should represent the same number of people.
2. Each voter should have the same number of votes.
3. The system must be simple and user friendly.

The system we currently have encompasses none of these principles, yet they are fundamental for ensuring that everyone in Jersey is adequately represented.

Essentially, this will mean that Jersey will be split into several multi-member super-constituencies, each covering the same population and each with the same number of members. We feel that this is the best way for islanders to make sure no one has more of a say than anyone else, each area will have equal representation and everyone will have the maximum say that is practically possible. It also means that there will be one type of States Member, and the Constables will remain as solely the heads of their Parish, rather than having their current dual role.

Over the next couple of weeks, we are aiming to deliver leaflets to as many houses in Jersey as possible (we are looking for volunteers, so please get in touch if you want to help!) to spread the word and encourage people to make their voices heard by writing into the commission and arguing for those three principles. You can see an online copy of the leaflet by clicking on the "Reform Jersey" tab on the navigation bar.

As well as that, on the 30th July we are holding a public meeting at the Town Hall to discuss reform. There will be a panel of speakers, politicians, former politicians, academics and mere mortals, as well as an opportunity for members of the public to express their views, ask questions and hopefully get a good debate going. More speakers are to be confirmed, but so far I can announce that we have former deputy and father of the Electoral Commission Daniel Wimberley, current Deputy Roy Le Hérissier, as well as myself.

So if all of this interests you, there are 4 things you can do -

1. Attend our public meeting at 7pm on the 30th July at the Town Hall.
2. Write to the commission at ec@gov.je and argue for those three principles!
3. Join our facebook group at www.facebook.com/ReformJersey and follow us on twitter @ReformJersey.
4. Get in contact with us at reformjersey@gmail.com, call me on 07797 811130 or send me a message on this blog (if you don't mind it being public).

The campaign officially starts now! So comrades, join me, gather your friends and lets make this happen!