Jersey under the chequebook

The following letter by Sonia Nightingale appeared in the Jersey Evening Post on Friday 15th July under the title "Island Governed by the Rich, for the Rich".  When I saw the title I wondered if she had been inspired by some of my election material. The sentiment she expresses is a common refrain amongst the retired and working people of St Helier. They feel completely forgotten, abandoned and betrayed.

Sonia lives in  District No.1 St Helier, so I set off to meet her. I caught her going out the door. She confirmed she would be voting, but not be for the representatives of the rich. Prospective candidates in St Helier No1 please take note.

"ABOUT half a million has been spent so far this year on pay-offs for civil servants and £7.5 million last year. I no longer shout and scream at these headlines in your paper – I just cry.

Where is the fairness of it all? I am a 74 year old Jersey born single pensioner struggling to exist. I have worked all my life, but because my two small pensions (one of which isn’t index-linked, so is rapidly decreasing in value) just take me into the income tax bracket, I get no financial help whatsoever. The small amount I was allowed in rent rebate has now also been stopped.

I also read that the WEB chief executive’s total package for 2010 has fallen by £20,000, to £266,540. My heart bleeds for him, how can he manage?

I am trapped here in the Island of my birth. I love it, incidentally, but hate what is happening to it now.

Jersey is governed by the rich for the rich."

Mount Bingham from the Dicq circa 1870

I have for many years been a collector of old photographs of the Channel Islands and in particular those from the earliest years of the art. I used such a photograph of steamships in St Helier harbour from Fort Regent as the background to my Manifesto when I stood for Deputy in 2008. Here it is:

Below is a photograph by the photographer Ouless which dates from about 1870. It shows Mount Bingham and is detail of a view looking at La Colette from the Dicq. All locations are within St Helier (well, just).

What can be seen is a house that is no longer there. It is situated at the base of Mount Bingham on land that is probably now incorporated into the gardens. Here is the photograph from which the detail comes. The rocks in the middle ground are where the sea swimming pool is now located. This is the view Victor Hugo would have had as he sat upon the rock know as "le rocher des proscrits".

“Doing a Bridget” Bridget Murphy – animal rights campaigner

Bridget Murphy lives in St Helier No1 District. Continuing my series of interviews with interesting residents, I caught up with Bridget this morning at the Hotel de France anti-whaling protest. The car horns in the background are passing motorists showing their support.

Bridget is best known for her letters to the JEP and regular contribution to the BBC Radio Jersey lunchtime phone–in programme, until it was curtailed.

I ask her about what might appear at first glance as a paradox in her support for all things “Establishment” and yet be a vocal campaigner. In Jersey supporters of the status quo, take their opinions from the JEP and maintain a genteel silence; so why is she prepared to do what few others will do?

Here she explains the origins of her involvement in campaigning against animal cruelty and goes on to explain what she thinks about the decision by BBC Radio Jersey to curtail the phone-in.

I have often been at odds politically with Bridget, but I respect her for having the courage to voice those views. She says she will be voting for me in the October elections. Some may be surprised at that. In that case they haven't really grasped that in a crisis new opportunities arise and alliance are born. Yes, the times they are a-changin'.

The accidental death of a patriot? Unrecorded Occupation resistance and tragic death of Captain Benjamin W. Bennett (1889 - 1941)

Bob Bennett is convinced his father, Captain Benjamin W. Bennett, was deliberately killed by German forces in Guernsey for an act of defiance in refusing to take on board his ship the MV Spinel a number of soldiers at Granville. 

Bob Bennett lives in St Helier No1 District and I met him canvassing. I found his story fascinating for a number of reasons. I let him recount his story here without judgment. All his life he has sought recognition for an act of resistance by his father and subsequent tragic death, which Bob is convinced are intimately linked.

Captain Benjamin W. Bennett (1889 -1941)

Captain Benjamin W. Bennett was born at Cheapside, St. Helier in 1889. His father was a coachman and ran livery stables.

“Ben” was not too keen on working with horses and ran away from home to serve on a Newfoundland trader at an early age and remained a mariner all his life.

At 20 in 1909, he was a sailor on the “Progress” of Sunderland which he seemed to intermix with service as mate on a couple of ketches for Renouf & Co of Jersey until 1914.

He moved around the coast of Britain working on sailing vessels or steamers as seaman, mate, master or AB as necessary. During the First World War he served on “trooping” ships such as the “Karnak” of Liverpool or SS “Buccaneer” of West Hartlepool, ferrying men and equipment across to Cherbourg and other ports.

He always received good references such as  “a most trustworthy officer…always sober and most attentive to his duty,” from his employers.

Antarctic rescue mission - Ernest Shackleton

His service on Scott’s former “Discovery” ship occurred during four months of the summer/autumn of 1916. By then the historic ship was employed by the Hudson’s Bay Company but was released in order to rescue Ernest Shackleton’s Antarctic team from Elephant Island. In fact, the Chileans beat them to it but “Ben” had seen some Southern oceans, been paid £40 (less deductions) and had been part of an internationally famous episode.

He passed as a Jersey Pilot for local waters in 1928 and continued serving on various commercial vessels until the Second World War.

From 1926 to 1932 he commanded Florence, Lady Trent’s motor yacht “Aphrodite.” His wage then was £4 per week in 1929 plus assistance with his railway fare “to and from Gorey.”

During the Occupation, in November 1940, he became Captain of the M.V. “Spinel.”

She was a small coaster, Scottish built in 1937 for Robertson’s shipping line of Glasgow, that had been sunk by German bombers at Dunkirk during the early days of evacuation. Raised and patched-up by the Germans she was offered to the Jersey States as a supply vessel to service the needs of the civil population.

"Bob" Bennett the Cabin Boy

Robert – sometimes “Bob” or “Ben” – his eldest son, joined the crew of about a dozen men as cabin boy. He was then sixteen. Now eighty-eight (in 2011) he features in the video interviews here.

As “Bob” explains, his father Captain Benjamin was killed at Guernsey on Saturday 22 February 1941 whilst trying to re-join the “Spinel” in harbour, on a low-tide. He is convinced that his father was deliberately killed as a result of refusing to transport German troops from Granville to Jersey and he describes that incident here.

“Bob” never attended his father’s funeral because the “Spinel” was ordered to Alderney but over 100 mourners did at St. James Church, St. Helier, including representatives from the German forces, the Guernsey and Jersey administrations, mariners, pilots etc. He was 52 years of age and interred alongside his father at Almorah cemetery.

John Leale, the President of the Guernsey Controlling Committee wrote to Captain Bennett’s widow – “Bob’s” distraught mother – a brief letter on 24 February 1941 expressing the very deep sympathy of the Committee and the Bailiff etc. He added “I hope it will be some consolation to you to realise that your husband met his death while doing his duty as a man should.”

Deportation

Upon return to Jersey, in spite of words of caution from his family, “Bob” continued to repeat his allegations against the Germans. Friendly Germans also warned him he was becoming an object of official attention. It was not long before he was arrested by the German political Police and interrogated.

In February 1943 “Bob” was shipped out of Jersey along with 27 or so other Jersey “naughty boys” and others from Guernsey and Sark for detention in Poland. It would be nearly three years before he was able to return to Jersey, but that is a tale for another day.

Now, “Bob” Bennett only wants deserved recognition for his father, as many others have received, for doing his duty and giving his life, during the Occupation of the Channel Islands.

                                     Benjamin W. Bennett in the uniform of the Merchant Navy

                                                          Benjamin W. Bennett (seated)

                                                         Motor Cargo Vessal "Spinel"

Thanks to the The Loftsman for information about MV Spinel

www.leithshipyards.com

http://leithbuiltships.blogspot.com

http://www.leithshipyards.com/ships-built-in-leith/1918-to-1939/307-spinel-yard-no-244-motor-cargo-vessel-wrobertson-a-co-built-1937.html

Hypocrisy, Smugness and Scrutiny

There was a certain frissance of expectation this morning as around 14 members of the public crammed into a small meeting room in Morier House, together with the accredited media, including CTV, BBC Radio Jersey and the JEP, to listen to a teleconference with Lenny Harper.

The Home Affairs and Education Scrutiny panel have achieved a certain notoriety with their decision, via a sub panel, to investigate the BDO report into the financial affairs of the child abuse enquiry. Former investigating officer Lenny Harper considers the report to be a simple attempt to discredit the management of the enquiry conducted by he and the former Chief of Police, Graham Power. BDO produced the report without ever discussing expenditure with Lenny Harper, even though he had been the principle commissioning officer.

Innovation

For the first time, bloggers and internet journalists (Democracy activists) were welcomed to the sub panel meeting, allowed to film and the public permitted to ask questions of Lenny Harper after he had given his evidence. This was a real step forward and precedent for future public involvement. Greater public participation may be the way to ensure that Scrutiny revives as a counterweight to Ministerial government.

Establishment opposition to the sub-panel investigation had been implacable, with Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand, doing his all to prevent the review. Deputy Trevor Pitman is chairing the sub-panel and relishing the publicity for his re-election as Deputy in St Helier. Senator Sarah Ferguson, Chair of the Scrutiny panel Chairman’s group attended to keep an eye on events.

There was good discussion and Lenny Harper was able to make clear that BDO had failed to interview him regarding the expenditure and that had they done so he would have been able to account for each item and refute allegations of extravagance and profligacy. He believes BDO were instructed not to speak to him.

Lenny Harper confirmed that it was Senator Jim Perchard who had leaked information contained in a Minister’s email to David Rose, a Daily Mail journalist with a reputation for discrediting enquiries into child abuse. Perchard denied leaking the email.

Public questions

The meeting began at 11 a.m. and finished at 12.30 a.m., after which the public were invited by Deputy Pitman to ask questions of Lenny Harper, who had agreed in advance to answer.

At this point panel members Deputies Roy Le Herissier and Daniel Wimberly together with Deputy Shona Pitman and Senator Sarah Ferguson, stood up and departed the meeting room. This left two politicians remaining; the chair Deputy Trevor Pitman and Deputy Montfort Tadier. Even though some Deputies later claimed they had other meetings to attend, the early departure of so many elected politicians was a clear effrontery and disrespect to the public questions section of the meeting.

Stuart Syvret snubbed

The first person to ask a question was blogger “Voiceforchilden”. This was followed by blogger “Tom Gruchy”.

The third member of the pubic seeking to ask a question was former Senator Stuart Syvret. Initially the chair of the meeting, Deputy Trevor Pitman would not let him speak saying he was not a journalist. Syvret stood his ground and said he was a “freelance journalist”. Syvret got to ask his question. Quite why the most famous Channel Island blogger was not worthy of a question seems bizarre

None of the accredited media availed themselves of the opportunity to ask Lenny Harper a question about his evidence.

Positives and negatives

Overall this was an innovative Scrutiny meeting that broke ground in terms of public participation in terms of being allowed to film and to ask questions of the interviewee. It was marred by the decision of nearly all States Members present to walk out, clearly indicating they had no interest to stay and listen to anything the public might ask.  The innate arrogance and authoritarianism of elected politicians dies hard, as was evident in the initial reluctance to allow Syvret to ask a question.

The unprecedented number of atendees at this particular Scrutiny meeting indicates that a more open format can engage the public.  The sky did not fall because the event was filmed and the public got to ask a few questions. The event is a rebuke to those States Members who have restricted bloggers filming at Scrutiny meetings and for whom the presence of the public is anyway a mild irritant. Democracy in Jersey is enemic, as is evident by the high levels of voter abstention and politicians' indifference to this malaise. Innovative forms of democratic engagement are urgently needed.

Does Jersey need a colonial governor? The tendentious retirement speech of Lt General Sir Andrew Ridgeway

   Jersey’s political class is learning to avoid the hallmark crassness of recent years when making public statements. The retirement speech by Lt General Sir Andrew Ridgeway, the Lt Governor, while measured and containing a number of valuable and astute observations on government in the island and the States Assembly, also betrayed significant anxieties.

Here I decipher the political code language he uses and expose the real meanings and themes of that speech. Ridgeways’ central purpose was to reassure the public that government was competent and capable. He also cautions against ill considered political change. The speech was an unrepentant defence of the status quo.

Shared social and political outlook

In spite of his denial, Ridway clearly has gone native, and sees his role as defending the efficacy of existing island institutions and its governing elite. He sought to emphasize that Jersey has good government and that it remains competent. This lack of impartiality might seem at odds with the official role of the Lt Governor as representative of the Crown and British Government.

One must understand that Rideway, as a senior Army officer and member of the English upper middle classes, shares the same social and political outlook as the group that makes political decisions locally. His five years in Jersey were spent essentially mixing with the elites, both social and political, at a round of official functions and charitable events.

The Great Fear of perceived incompetence

Ridgeway’s speech to the States and subsequent interview with BBC Radio Jersey were both staged events with the purpose of bolstering confidence and deflecting criticism.

He set out firstly to counter allegations of incompetence and secrecy in the handling by Jersey’s government of the Haut de la Garenne child abuse. Jersey’s rulers are still smarting from the national and international media sensationalism.

Foot stampers of the Motherland

There was foot stamping from States Members when the Lt Governor mentioned that the press action had “diverted attention away from the real priority of caring for the abused and bringing the guilty to justice”

This was a disingenuous comment. The approbation by States members was not compassion towards the victims, rather it was recognition that their self image of a caring and harmonious society had been exposed as a fallacy.  The foot stamping was an expression of resentment towards that humiliation.

At the time the publicity was perceived as bad for business and having left a legacy that the government of the island is callous. Ridgway emphasized that behind the scenes, he had been reassuring the British Government that the island administration had not broken down and remained effective. The great fear of Jersey’s rulers is that Whitehall might intervene as it has ultimate responsibility for the good governance of the Channel Islands.

Instrumentalisation of child abuse

His name was never mentioned directly, but the great bete noire of the island’s political and social elite, is former Senator Stuart Syvret. It was to him that Ridgway’s remarks were directed when he said:

“Unfortunately, some individuals in the island chose to exploit the situation for their own personal political ends and diverted attention to fanciful claims of mass child murder and institutional cover up – the international media were happy to oblige them.”

Quite accurate and perceptive – the personal is political.

Gratitude – 5% GST and 20% Income Tax in context

Ridgeways’ second concern was to assert that the Jersey’s governing elite remains capable of managing that part of the economy relating to finance through difficult times. Indeed we are all to be grateful to finance for the level of public services, which he emphasized were the equal of those elsewhere in Europe and delivered with significantly lower taxes for the population.

Ridgway did not mention that there were significant social rights available to citizens in the UK and in the EU that are not available in the island. Comparison reveals how far the island lags behind and how much islanders miss out. An island built on a model of low taxes and light regulation is one that only reluctantly extends social rights.

“Widespread criticism of the current form of government” - the Composition of the States & Reform

Ridgway echoed the elite’s concern that the business of politics is becoming more contentious and less consensual. This he saw manifest in the increasingly impolite conduct of States Members toward each other.

What is really happening is that the elite’s control over the political system is being challenged by subordinate social groups in society, arising from social and economic discontents. Authority and control are being questioned in an unprecedented way.

Senators and the status quo

The least media commented part of Ridgway’s speech was his views on the composition of the States Assembly.

He said:

“..I have noticed certain satisfaction in some sections of the Assembly that after lengthy debate, decisions were finally taken, of reducing the number of Senators in the Assembly and doing away with the separate Senatorial election day. I can only observe, that it might have been better to identify the future role of the Senator before deciding how many, if any, were needed.

It does seem in the absence of political parties, the senatorial election is the only opportunity that the island wide population has to let politicians know what policies they want to be followed during the next term. [Foot-stamping approbation]

Successful Senators are thus the only Members of this Assembly, with any sort of island wide popular mandate. Equally unsuccessful Senatorial candidates know that the policies that they have proposed are not supported by the population at large. One might have hoped that this might have reduced the number of futile propositions brought before the Assembly.

The members of this Assembly have of course the absolute democratic right to vote for whatever constitutional changes they see fit; it just seems a pity having decided to establish a commission to address these issues from top to bottom, that certain decisions have been allowed to pre-judge the outcome of the review.”

Such tendentious argument weighs in with the most anti-reform sentiment. The electorate has no ability to structure the government or express policy choices under the current unreformed constitution.

The political class is quite happy with the current opaque and unaccountable system that has centralized power in the Council of Minister, without the democratic counter weight of the Clothier proposals for one category of States Members, larger constituencies etc. Certainly he never expressed any concern about the 65% voter abstention; a figure that raises doubts about the legitimacy of election results.

He went on to caution that the States should choose the “right person” to lead the Electoral Commission and further ensure it was “someone with a deep understanding of Jersey”. All this is code for saying the Chairman should be hand picked and reliable; someone who will ensure the desired recommendations are known in advance. In other words Ridgway envisages the commission as an antidote to the Clothier Report – the counter revolution. 

It was the French aristocrat Alexis De Tocqueville, who remarked that political regimes are at their most vulnerable at the very moment they embark upon change. The extent and direction of that change can rapidly proceed beyond the desires of those proposing the change. Clearly Ridway is anxious that nothing should change that might destabilize the rule of a wealthy elite.

Self criticism

In his speech Ridgway sought to question the role of the States, yet was incapable of self criticism. The question he did not ask is what is the purpose of having a Lt-Governor? It is one of those essentially taboo subjects, a holy cow that is considered an unacceptable topic of discussion. Why does Jersey need a colonial governor?

Civil Partnerships and the campaign for equality

 

“There is a pragmatic view; Jersey society will only take so much of this reform”

 Deputy Roy Le Herissier, Chair of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel

There are parallels to be made between the passage of Civil Partnerships legislation and the campaign in the early 90’s to legalise abortion and over the age of consent. This time round there is less resistance by the forces of conservatism, yet their intolerance remains evident. That intolerance comes from the political right and in particular from the religious right.

I was a member of the Pro-Choice group, of women and men, campaigning to support the Public Health Committee bring the abortion legislation through the States in the early 90’s. It was a hard fought battle. Jersey society was supportive as was indicated by a petition, then the largest ever for the time. As ever, it was convincing the political elites and overcoming the conservatism of the right to block progressive social legislation. The UK had made abortion legal in 1967 and still thirty years later steps has not been taken to modernize the law in Jersey to reflect the reality of medical practice and changed perceptions of women’s rights.

The Civil Partnerships legislation is currently undergoing Scrutiny by the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel and this week saw a number of important witnesses appear before the panel to give their opinion.

The Civil Partnerships legislation confers to gay and lesbian couples the same rights as marriage does to heterosexual couples, without calling it marriage and excluding religious involvement. Indeed the legislation is designed with religious sentiment in mind. It achieves the same end without calling it marriage. For political purposes it is a devise to turn resistance from the right and religious groups that are intolerant and homophobic.

From a purely legislative perspective is would be so much more simple to allow couples of the same sex to get married and all the rights and obligations associated with that institution as conferred by the state would follow. Instead we have a stand alone piece of legislation that involves considerable consequential amendments to other legislation, particularly in regards to inheritance and taxation. One Advocate appeared to remind the panel that the Housing Law would also have to be amended, just in case the point had been overlooked.

Senator Ozouf appeared to give evidence in his capacity as deputy Chief Minister, the Chief Minister’s Office having responsibility for the legislation. He probably wished he did not have to be there; the Chief Minister being absent in China. As an openly gay man he was sympathetic personally to the legislation and it is undoubtedly his presence in the Council of Ministers that has eased its passage, especially as there are a number of Ministers with strong homophobic opinions. Senator Ozouf’s discomfort was evident as he struggle with the conflicting tensions of principle and pragmatism. His language was measured and at times strained as he sought, under aggressive questioning by Deputy Montfort Tadier, to avoid admitting that religious sentiment was being pragmatically appeased.

Next on was the Dean and he just waffled. He did however make it clear that most religious groups in the island, but with one important exception, would not wish to hold Civil Partnerships on church premises nor offer blessings subsequent to a civil ceremony.

Representatives of the Quakers indicated that the Society of Friends held what they called a meeting for commitment as a kind of blessing at which a gay or lesbian couple would stand up and make clear their commitment. This had been happening in the UK since the 2005 Act. Ironically under the Jersey legislation Civil Partnership ceremonies cannot be held in religious premises, which would include the Friends Meeting House.

The JEP had sent a reporter to the scrutiny meeting to catch the words of wisdom as they fell from the lips of those with status in society like the Dean and Senator Ozouf. However the reporter did not stick around to hear the two women representing the Quakers and nor did the newspaper report their significantly more tolerant attitude towards gay and lesbian civil union.

In general, what one sees is that progressive opinion is simply ignored in any debate and the views of the elite take precedence, however backward and intolerant they may be. This observation holds true for other institutions that desperately need reform, be it Honorary Police, the role of the Bailiff and Crown Officers or the composition of the States.

As a final thought, it is a shame that Christopher Lakeman, Advocate and openly gay man, is not alive to see the passage of the Civil Partneships legislation. I recall that he had been officially authorised to officiate at such ceremonies.

“Well out” – Civil Service “golden handshake” could be £700k. So who took the decision?

 

Senator Jim Perchard, hot from his joint victory in the States on Monday with Senator Shenton that achieved a temporary reprieve for private school subsides, followed up his earlier headline catching revelations that States CEO Bill Oggley had received a pay-off of as much as £700k. If correct, this is £200k more than the £500k he revealed in May during a quarterly interview with the Chief Minister.

Jim dropped this little tit bit during a routine Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel Meeting. This time however, the JEP were not in attendance to scoop a front page headline.

Jim further indicated that the information the golden handshake was “well out” at £500k had come from an anonymous informant.

Like the entire island, save one assumes the Council of Ministers, Senator Perchard was incensed that such large sums could be agreed as a pay-off at a time of austerity and planned States budget cuts. Had there been a Ministerial decision to approve the payment? Yes, replied the Scrutiny Clerk.  Minutes of the States Employment Board (SEB) for 16^th February 2011 recorded that the negotiation of a compromise agreement for the mutual termination of employment of the States CEO had been delegated to the “Chair of the SEB” and the Chief Minister.  The “Chair of the SEB” is none other than Senator Le Sueur, the Chief Minister.  We must assume that a mutually agreeable sum was reached by the Chief Minister on his lonesome. Should this delegation have happened and did the other SEB members endorse the amount? Clearly there needs to be more information made available to States Members and the public about the “strictly confidential” decision.

Further perambulations – the Middle classes are hurting now

Continuing my perambulations around the “aul sod” (Irishism for the holy ground) of No.1 District led me to my own front door at Havre de Pas, where I happened to knock on the door of a former colleague in finance to solicit he and his wife’s vote. I was met with a sorry tale that this fellow Jerseyman and wife were both unemployed and the family facing severe financial hardship. There being no unemployment benefit and since social security benefits are not available to home owners, he was on the point of moving the family to France, whilst ringing friends in London to find a floor upon which to sleep pending the search for work.

“There are no jobs – no one would employ me even as a clerk – I am too experienced”. said my former colleague. As I turned to walk down the pathway he left me with his final thoughts “Jersey is finished” he said. Although he was bailing out, he respected my fight to retain a little dignity for the working people of the island.  

I repeat this sad tale, not to breach any confidences, rather to reveal that the true state of the economy is pretty dire and far from the one of improvement that government Ministers would have us believe.

I fully understand my former colleague’s decision to leave the island, however I am making a stand. There will be no retreat and no surrender. Now there's fighting talk!

“If the debate on school fees is lost tomorrow, the £65 million savings will not be delivered” Senator Philip Ozouf, Treasury Minister

 

“If the debate on school fees is lost tomorrow, the £65 million savings will not be delivered”

Senator Philip Ozouf, Treasury Minister - Evidence to the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel 13.06.2011

The first serious challenge politically to the Comprehensive Savings Review (“Cuts” in the colloquial) will come tomorrow as the States debates a proposition by Senator Ben Shenton to maintain subsidies to private schools.

The Treasury Minister Senator Ozouf recognises that this is the first serious political test for the policy of saving £65m over three years. Will the Senator be able to muster his forces to see his policy through or is it a sign that concessions will have to be made every time there is significant public dissent?

Clearly the Middle Classes, the foundation of the Establishment vote, are not happy with having to pay an extra £500 - £1000 per year extra per child for education at a private school. The state subsidy has been a little perk to the Middle classes to enable them to afford privileged education that might otherwise, for some have, been out of reach.

Senator Shenton is up for election this October and is clearly seeking votes amongst the middle classes most affected. Like his father he is a populist. Win or loose he will be able to say he tried and that will secure his reelection.

It is ironic that Senators Shenton and Perchard should be seeking to maintain private school subsidies, as both are “hawks” when it comes to the £65m savings and cuts to public services, and perhaps more so that the Treasury Minister himself. So why are those plus royale que le roy seeking to have his head chopped off?

The Treasury Minister sees the removal of the fee subsidies as justified both on grounds of user pays and efficiency. He is not up for election this October. This illustrates the point that the current structure of the States with its 6 year term Senators, insulates them and policy from popular dissatisfaction.

As I have been perambulating around the district, several electors with children at private schools have indicated to me this is their number one political priority. We will see if the Treasury Minister can defy the voting classes. If he wins, he will become the stage villain. He is not up for election this time, but it may cost the Education Minister his seat in St Ouen. Senator Shenton will take the credit, get reelected and then support the real assault on the living standards of working people over the next four year parliament.

All publicity is good publicity - Party politics essential to a vibrant Democracy

On the basis that all publicity is good publicity, it was a pleasure to read the article about me in tonight’s edition of the Jersey Evening Post newspaper. I had not formally declared my intention to stand as such announcements are traditionally reserved for the period just before nominations, which will be in September. Not that it does any harm, because at least the electorate will be forewarned when I knock on their door to discuss politics and elections. The article was based on the Newsletter that I have been circulating around homes in District No 1 in which I do state my intention to stand. That’s as good as formal announcement.

Making an announcement early shows, I hope, my commitment. I want to be Deputy for No.1, the district in which I live. There will be quiet a number who will stand for election here and I know some who have already said they are considering their prospects. Let’s hope they declare early like me so that the electorate can see their caliber that much sooner.

There are bound to be a few “outsiders” chancing their arm that this is the soft underbelly of the States.  Traditionally District No.1 has been a back door for a number of “Establishment” candidates who have ill served the electors once firmly ensconced.

Sitting Deputies also have a tendency to think that they have a preordained right to be reelected. Disillusionment with the existing Deputies is everywhere I go. To be fair to them, its disillusionment with the possibility that change is possible. Working people understand instinctively that there is much wrong with the “Jersey Way” but cannot articulate it in a systemic way nor suggest any real solutions. One of the questions I ask is can you name the deputies in this district. Very few can and that applies equally to those who say they vote at every election.

Political parties

The tone of the JEP article was to emphasise my support for the idea of political parties. Its true I do. The banner headline was “Political party backer to stand for Deputy”. However, my Newletter did not mention anything about political parties, so I can only assume it was either deliberate and mischievous or simply poor journalism.  I was not contacted by the JEP to discuss my newsletter, although I did have one missed call from them on my mobile. The journalist clearly was not that concerned to call back and tell me they were doing a story and find out more about my intentions.

I describe Time4Change in my Newsletter as a “pressure group” and not as is described in the article as a political party. It is not a political party and has never been conceived of as such, let alone being registered legally as a political party for election purposes.

For the JEP the use of the expression “political party” is a code word for “left wing and dangerous” and by association anyone who might favour such developments is to be considered in such terms.

We have a long way to go before there is a credible opposition. Those that might constitute one prefer to be prima donnas and hate the implications of accountability that would flow from their being part of an organised and mandated group.

Elsewhere in the world, political ideologies and differences are expressed in the form of political parties. A number of the major offshore finance centres in the Carribean and elsewhere have them albeit there is very little political difference – just an in and out group of elites. That parties do not exist in the Channel Islands is a reflection of their political backwardness, or more precisely that the interests of working people have not been translated into a coherent political representation. Parties and party politics are vital ingredients of a vibrant democracy.

Portugal’s elections see a 41% abstention. Hold on, in Jersey we have 70 - 80%!

 Reading an article about the recent elections in Portugal, I was struck by the following remarks:

“……it is remarkable that more than 41 percent failed to cast their votes. It is a disturbing sign of a feeble democracy in which the divide between politicians and voters keeps growing.

The political bubble in which many of these politicians operate is a different country from the one in which a great part of the population lives. And although ‘guilt’ can never be one-sided, it is ultimately those who are elected as representatives that must make an effort to reflect the voters' will.” (*)

So, voter abstention is a sign of a “feeble democracy”. Why does no one take this issue seriously in Jersey, when we have voter abstention in the region of 60% to 80% depending on Parish and District? The fault for this argues the author lies with the representatives failing to make an effort to reflect the voter’s will. I am only  aware of States Members expressing contempt or indifference towards those that do not vote. No one is the slightest bit interested to find out why they do not vote, let alone suggest how this might be rectified. When did one ever see the local media take up the issue or ask a committed non-voter for their reasons. This surely is the elephant in the room of Jersey politics. Yes, they really are living in a political bubble, just like the political class across Europe.

(*) Portugal: the day after  Sofia Diogo Maeus (06.06.2011) openDemocracy

"They don’t do anything for people like us” - overcoming voter abstention and cynicism.

Distribution of the June District No.1 Newletter to all households in District No.1 is nearly completed. If you have come to the blog having followed the link, then thank you. There may have been something in the leaflet that stirred some interest, so let me know what it was.

As I and supporters have been going around delivering those leaflets, we have sought to engage residents in political discussion with a view to winning a vote in the October elections. There have been some fruitful discussions and many have appreciated that I gave them the courtesy of a personal visit, even this early in the electoral campaign. Thanks to the two gentlemen in Pier Road who gave me an ice cold lager one hot June Thursday.

One couple were off to Canada on holiday from August through to October (yes, lucky them!) and I advised how they could download a Postal Vote request from the St Helier Parish internet site soon after the nominations for Deputy on 7^th September. The request for a postal ballot will have to be sent signed, direct to the Judicial Greffe in the Royal Square, and for them to send out the ballot form. The six weeks between the nominations on 7^th September and election on 19^th October should be enough for them to complete the process. The completed ballot must arrive a few days before the election date to be valid. Cut-off dates and times will, no doubt, be printed on the form.

The big enemy in this election is not other candidates – I don’t take them too seriously – it’s the fact that eighty percent of the electorate abstain from voting. Everywhere I go, I encounter the same cry about the political class – “They don’t listen to us”; “They don’t do anything for people like us”; “They say one thing at election time and once elected do the opposite”. I hear all these comments and then set about trying to sort out the complexity and confusion that lies hidden in these sentiments. Most of the time, I do not succeed, but at least I try. I tell them I follow an old Socialist slogan, yes remember Socialism, and  that slogan is “Pessimism of the mind, optimism of the will”. What does it mean? It means even though the task may seem impossible, it is human action that can find a solution through the very act of doing. Even though so few vote, I do not give up on trying to engage everyone. Essentially its a political issue that I cannot address on my own. It will require sustained education by those committed to democracy and social justice.

Voter abstention is not because the electorate is somehow basically content. Quite the contrary, there is deep anger at the conduct of the government, as personified by Senators Le Sueur and Ozouf. That sullen resentment is not as yet mobilised into political action. I try to explain that disengagement of the individual voter is precisely what the Establishment want. They have no desire for working people to get out and vote for candidates that express their social and economic interests. Better they stay at home on election day and remain frustrated and passive. I see my task as giving potential voters sufficient confidence that change is possible.

Voter abstention is ignored by government, politicians and the media. Both government and elected politicians got there with the existing electorate and for them that is enough. Over the coming weeks I hope to do some video blogs and examine the arguments that are used. They will be familiar ones and I want to deconstruct the malaise that affects potential voters. I work from the basic premise that bad governments are elected because good people don’t vote.

The Havre des Pas Monte Carlo Rally - speeding deterrant at last

Several months ago BBC Radio Jersey’s Talkback programme had as their theme of the day the issue of speed limits across the island. I rang in to the programme to speak on air about the situation at Havre des Pas and in particular the way drivers tend to speed down Mount Bingham, especially at night. Living as I do on the front at Havre des Pas,  I was not aware there had been any speed enforcement in the area.

Behold, this afternoon a Police officer was situated on the road opposite the swimming pool armed with a speed gun. He caught several vehicles speeding, amongst them two BMWs and a Mercedes. The officer duly took the details of the offending drivers, who one imagines will be summonsed in the Magistrates Court.

As the weather improves, more children will be using the pool and elderly taking to the promenade. Consequently, I am pleased to see that the issue of speeding is being taken seriously. The knowledge that there have been Police at the bottom of Mount Bingham and along Havre des Pas may act as a deterrent to speeding drivers in the future.