The Day of the Democrats?

My submission to the Electoral Commission can be read on their website here. I shall be attending an oral hearing with the Commission tomorrow Friday 17^th August 2012 @ 2pm. 

 

I have attempted in my submission to give a certain historical explanation of why we are where we are now and how the States Assembly arrived at its present structure. More importantly I have sought to explain why a democratic structure was never implemented after the Second World War. I mention that in 1943 the Jersey Democratic Movement issued an illegal leaflet with demands for a reformed States Assembly that essentially prefigured Clothier by sixty years. We are still waiting.

There is a woeful ignorance among politicians and public alike about the development of the States Assembly. The books on the subject are now long out of print and collectors’ items. As far as I know Roy Le Herissier’s seminal 1972 “The Development of the Government of Jersey, 1771-1972” is not on line. Dr John Kelleher’s “The Triumph of the Country” is also difficult to obtain. We have no historical knowledge of the franchise and who was entitled to vote and what percentage of the population had the vote at various times.

I am stunned, but perhaps I should not, that a Constable or should I say Connétable, can write in a submission the following:

 

"Deputy

There must have been a good reason to give Parish political officers the title of Deputy however, today it is more confusing as I often get the question asked “are they your Deputy” and I reply that it is just a title for their political role."

Could I venture to suggest that Deputy as a title is an anglicization of the French député; the sort of representative that sat in the various French legislatures from the time of the Revolution. The Loi (1856) sur l'augmentation du nombre des membres des etats, introduced the first directly elected members of the States. The numbers in the States was increased by fourteen Deputies, three for St Helier and one each for the other parishes.

We have an interesting line up for tomorrow with hopefully some strong voices in favour of real reform. We also have the die hard reactionaries who will no doubt be advocating a Second Chamber. The idea of a Second Chamber has become the party line for all loyalists, never ever having been mooted prior to now. It is utter folie de grandeur that the parish council should have an upper house. The intention is entirely anti-democratic.

Ultimately the UK government has responsibility for good government and if our elites are unable to deliver, then the Sark precedent of intervention is evident for all.

 

The running order for tomorrow’s oral hearings at St Pauls Centre is as follows:

10 am: Deputy Sean Power

10.30 am: Mr. Daniel Wimberley

11 am: Deputy Trevor Pitman

11.30 am: Mr. Reg Jeune, CBE

12 noon: Mr. Mike Dun

1.30 pm: Deputy Geoff Southern

2 pm: Mr. Nick Le Cornu

2.30 pm: Senator Alan Breckon

The public are welcome to attend. Full report in due course.

Is it time to stop defending the indefensible? - The Chief Minister at the Electoral Commission

The 1948 Constitution crumbles

The question has to be asked. Exactly why was the Chief Minister giving evidence to the Electoral Commission out of Season just before the holidays? The especially arranged meeting, called on one day’s notice, without the Chief Minister having made a written submission, was all together rather peculiar.

One can only speculate, but perhaps all is not going well with the “well laid plans” of the Electoral Commission for a coup d’etat on States reform. The written submissions on the web site are displaying a marked unanimity that it is time for the Constables to go. Reform Jersey had a very successful meeting in the Town Hall and has taken the moral high ground with its emphasis on democratic concerns

It may also be that some of the members of the Commission are thinking a little too independently and perhaps even a little too democratically. Like Napoleon at Waterloo, sending in the Old Guard to save the day, the Chairman of the Commission had to call in the Chief Minister in order to discipline other members and set out the party line.

Clothier

The Clothier Report of 2000 had justifiably condemned the 1948 constitutional arrangement as no longer fit for purpose in a democratic age. It also offered a viable political alternative. Reform without dramatic change a la mode anglaise.

Clothier proposed a simple and logical solution. The States would be reformed with the creation of one category of member, all elected on the same day and in large constituencies of equal population. Senators and Constables would go.

Ten years later and there has been little progress. Clothier was and remains anathema to entrenched vested interests, traditionalists and the forces of conservatism. The Chief Minister did allude to vested interest being a barrier to any form of change.

The forces of conservatism are preparing a last rearguard battle to secure their position in the hope of hanging on for another few decades. Time is running out as the crisis has arrived in Jersey and the public mood is growing impatient with intransigent attitudes.

Arrangements that delivered stability and continuity immediately after the Second World War, entrenching power in the hands of the new business elite fearful of popular discontent built up during the Occupation, are no longer tenable in an age of Human Rights. Hanging on to the old ways is no longer acceptable or viable.

What currently exists is illogical; the accretion of history, now unpruned and grown rank.

A second Chamber? – “knowledge, expertise and wisdom”

 

The Chief Minister, Senator Ian Gorst clearly had not thought through the mechanics of what he was there to propose. Clothier has a certain beauty because its proposals are simple and logical. What we heard from the Chief Minister were suggestions that on their own might be plausible, but taken together were contradictory and unworkable.

Defense of the status quo is hard when what is being defended is not properly analysed or comprehended. Many of the written submissions to the Commission suffer from the absence of any real grasp of the current system of government. Much of what is written is more a hankering for the past when there was no dissent or conflict and the economy was buoyant.

Senators in a Senate – elected or appointed?

One of the themes being pushed today was that there should be a second chamber. A bi-cameral system would solve in one fell swoop the problem of what to do with the Senators, if they cannot be abolished. The answer is to stick them in an upper house.

Putting the Constables in the upper house was touched upon, but not really embraced. The thought itself is bizarre given the impracticalities of country bumpkins scrutinizing complex financial legislation of which they knew nothing and cared little. Their primary function in the States is to push the button and vote the way that supports the government.

The Chief Minister then introduced a new theme to the debate on an upper house. Should these new Senators be elected or appointed? For conservatives the idea of appointment has an innate attraction. The practical problem is that who would appoint them? There was no answer to that issue and inevitable fears of political patronage. Furthermore, appointment would do away with the “all island mandate” which so many appear to favour. It’s not possible to elect Senators and appoint them at the same time.

A second chamber is by its very nature “aristocratic”, the very antithesis of democratic. To then propose that these Senators could be appointed speaks volumes about the undemocratic thinking behind the scheme. Senators are loved, we are told, because of their all island mandate. That is to say they are chosen by the electorate throughout the island and have as their legitimacy thousands of votes. So, what crazy idea is it to start appointing and removing the democratic aspect of an election?

The Chief Minister would not be drawn on the point of election or appointment; he left it open. Clearly this is what the Chairman of the Commission is thinking and explains why he went on holiday to Barbados, which has such a bi-cameral system. Quite why such coyness is not clear since the Chief Minister was there to express opinion. Indeed so much of what he said was with reservations, partly no doubt not to pre-empt the findings of the Electoral Commission, which as we all know are pretty much decided. Perhaps today’s appearance was to give benediction to the predictable outcome.

Second chambers are also notorious for generating conflict with the lower Assembly. One can well imagine further paralysis and delay in a States noted for its indecisiveness over contentious matters.

The end of Scrutiny

It was not entirely clear from the Chief Ministers evidence, but he seemed to imply that the new Senate would take over the role of the current Scrutiny. The new Senators would presumably play no role in the Executive, but this was not clear.

Deputies and Super Constituencies

Having put Senators in a Senate, the position of Deputies became clearer. Reduction in the size of the States could be achieved by reducing the number of Deputies and electing those that remain in new large constituencies that need not follow parish boundaries.

Reducing the number of Deputies is a mechanism for removing dissent or eliminating those elected in urban constituencies and expressing the interests of the popular classes in general. Basically it’s a way to get rid of what the right see as “the lefties”.

The idea of larger constituencies was designed to deal with the so called “democratic deficit” or the disparity in Senators being elected with thousands of votes, whilst Deputies can get elected with a few hundred votes, given low turnout at elections. Larger constituencies would end tiny parish constituencies and, presumably, give Deputies a greater legitimacy.

The logic of legitimacy from large number of votes was not extended by the Chief Minister to Constables in their parishes, nor to the fact that 8 out of 12 at the last election did not face a contested election - uncontested elections being a common phenomena in Constables elections.

Senators would be elected island wide or even appointed; fewer Deputies in new constituencies and Constables in their parishes. Clear but confusing and certainly not democratic or any real advance of what exists.

Independent boundary commission

Ed Sallis, one of the more democratically minded of the “lay” member on the Commission, bowled the Chief Minister a bit of a googely by asking if there should be an independent boundary commission to determine these new Deputy constituencies. Back came the answer “God, not if we can avoid it” said Gorst. Once again there was hesitancy  over a suggestion with democratic implications.

Needless to say there was no discussion of the over representation of the Country parishes, each with its own Constable.

Holy cows and Constables

The Chief Minister recognised that the position of Constable was what he described as “the most divisive office”. His own official position was made clear when he told us parishes are the very bed rock of Jersey society; the Constables a vital link between the parish system and central government. This is traditionalist ideological pap. Whether the Chief Minister really believes this stuff was ambiguous. It is certainly realpolitik. He is surrounded by so many traditionalists that there is no space for a democratic moderniser, not that he is one. However what he is defending was condemned long ago, just like Sark’s feudalism.

An Englishman rooted in Jersey soil

It is sad to see that the Chief Minister has no clear thoughts on reform of the States Assembly and electoral system. Without Executive support the type of reforms that are essential cannot be implemented. Instead the crisis will deepen.

There was no understanding that the electorate cannot structure the States and has no policy choice. “Is a single election day more about turnout?” mused the Chief Minister, oblivious to the crisis of legitimacy that a 60% voter abstention represents. Of course a single election day is already agreed for 2014, so how exactly can anyone dream of going back to the bad old ways of staggered elections?

The Chief Minister in his own mind understands the issues and contradiction. He alluded to Clothier having succinctly analysed the problem, but could not admit that its proposals are the only sensible solution. He is an Englishman rooted in Jersey soil and the local prejudices are hard to overcome. The elite do not want change. They cannot admit there is a problem. They will hang on to the bitter end and it is ordinary citizens of Jersey that will suffer in the meantime.

Party Line.

It will be interesting to see what the official media make of this morning’s events. They will be looking for the correct stear to communicate to the population. The JEP and CTV both sent journalists. Will they have been as confused and bemused as were citizen’s media and most of the public in the audience?

Predictable

If the Chief Minister achieved anything yesterday it was to confirm that there will be no significant democratic breakthrough. The Electoral Commission will come up with a scheme that is basically Plan Bailhache; the one expected all along. Quite how this will be translated into a clear referendum for the public to give a clear answer is virtually impossible. Illogical and undemocratic schemes are inherently untenable.

The next task is to expose in the eyes of the public how unsatisfactory are the so called reforms being planned by the Electoral Commission and Chief Minister. The demand must remain for real democratic reforms to the States Assembly and electoral system. Clothier has set them out already.

REFORM JERSEY – Calls for States reform and democracy – Town Hall Meeting

Reform Jersey held its first public meeting in the Town Hall last night to discuss States reform.

The meeting was chaired by Sam Mézec. Four speakers presented a variety of opinions – Deputy Roy Le Herissier; former Deputy Daniel Wimberly and law student James Rondel. 

The meeting was well attended with seventy interested members of the public. Following the speeches there was a question and answer session from the floor which allowed an number of people to express their opinions. Apologies to those who were unable to speak; Reform Jersey will be holding further events and meetings.

Here are the speeches together with my guest appearance on the reform process in Sark and its implications for Jersey.

 

 Sam Mezec

Nick Le Cornu

(Deputy Roy Le Herissier

James Rondel

Daniel Wimberly

                                                                Deputy Montfort Tadier

Woah, I'm going to Barbados (WITH THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION) - Premium Economy Class, naturally.

Electoral Commission holds 3rd public hearing – Placemen, timings, information

Two things are becoming clear from the Electoral Commission hearings; firstly the lay panel members are far from being placemen and secondly the public remain ill informed about the composition of the States Assembly and electoral system.

Town Hall hearings

The third public hearing occurred yesterday in the Town Hall at 10am, when four witnesses gave evidence. There was a separate hearing for one female witness at 5pm. The Commission is to be praised for accommodating someone whose only availability was after work.

I was aware of the hearings being held this Monday but could not find the start time on the Commission website. It took an email and a very rapid reply from the Greffier of the States to advise it was about to begin at 10am. Realising I had two minutes to get to the Town Hall, I pulled on my shoes and shot off on the bicycle. When I checked later in the day a notice with timings had indeed appeared under the NEWS section.

A full house - Placemen and Democrats.

Commission member Dr. Jonathan Renouf made his first appearance, making it the first occasion all members had been present at a hearing. He proved his worth along with Professor Ed Sallis and Colin Storm, gently teasing out aspects of the “democratic deficit” in the current structure.

Given the concerns about independence for the Commission from the outset, in having States Members on board, it is reassuring to note that the lay members are far from being placemen. One hopes that during private session and in drafting the final report, their evident concerns about democratic issues are reflected.

Deficiencies in the electoral system

The electoral system is not part of the terms of reference of the Commission, however witnesses have raised issues in their written submissions and orally. There has been discussion of the single transferable vote and other mechanisms to indicate voter preference, since the first past the post system and equal weighting for every vote cast, creates distortions. The public is clearly flagging up issues of equality and fairness in all aspects of the process as well as structure.

The absence of the electoral and voting system from the final terms of reference derives, one suspects, from the desire not to address the “democratic deficit” and issue of voter abstention. A 60% voter abstention makes Jersey one of the highest amongst democratic countries. The low 40% turnout at elections raises serious questions of legitimacy for those elected. That is perhaps a little too embarrassing and hence the concentration on the structure of the Assembly.

To remind readers, the terms of reference are restricted to:

• Classes of States member;
• Constituencies and mandates;
• Number of States members;
• Terms of office;
• and all other issues arising in the course of the work of the Commission which are relevant to the needs stated above.

Town and Country divide – new wine in old bottles

The historical divide between Town and Country is throwing up disparities and highlighting inequalities. The contrast is ever between the Parish of St Mary with a population of 1752, a Constable and a Deputy, while St Helier has 10 Deputies, a Constable and 33,532 residents. To achieve the same level of representation St Helier would require 38 representatives in the States! No one is suggesting this, but it illustrates the problem starkly.

In the past the dominance of the Country Parishes represented the influence of landed property and the farming interest, over the interests of commerce in the Town. The history of that epic economic and political struggle is well recorded in Dr John Kelleher’s  book “The Triumph of the Country”.

Now that farmers have been replaced with bankers, lawyers, accountants and the well healed, that divide has taken a new form. New wine has been poured into old bottles. The Country is where the wealthy live, while in the Town of St Helier and the “urban” parishes, live the poor and middle classes. The disparities in the electoral system have never been addressed precisely because it achieves the dominance of the interests of the wealthy. It is a form of gerrymandering.  Those in St Helier and the urban areas are denied equal representation in government.

A dearth of information

Speaking to one witness yesterday highlighted the absence of information provided by the Electoral Commission which the public can use to inform themselves and make a credible submission. There is a lot of frustration with the existing system in its evident failure to deliver but little clear analysis of the core issues and how it has come about. There is a manifest desire to make improvements, however some of the schemes are Byzantine and unworkable, loosing sight of democratic principles. Those that contribute do so with good intentions but are handicapped by not being well informed. The Commission has not provided any tools of analysis and it is highly unlikely the final report will be an extensive discourse of political science.

I have mentioned in earlier posts of the romaticised views expressed about Constables and the Parish. Some present an idyllic harmonious community, divested of issues such as the provision of welfare and shelter for the poor.

The Commission has been particularly criticised for not carrying out research into the contribution of Constables in the Assembly; their engagement in Scrutiny, questions to Ministers and participation in debates. This has been part of an ORGANISED campaign and its success is evident by the number of contributors making submissions using the template request. The campaign has been conducted via the internet, in part on Facebook and a number of Jersey blogs. Senator Bailhache, the Chairman, alluded to the requests which the Commission had decided to ignore.

Were the public better informed they might be less romantic about Constables. Just a couple of examples could suffice, such as the fact that in eight of the twelve parishes there was no contested election for Constable in 2011, whilst the one that occurred in St Ouen was the first in 108 years.

The times they are a’changin – NOT in the Country Parishes at least.

Health care in Jersey – a quarter century of under funding, political neglect and uncertain catch up.

 “The White Paper only reflects what the NHS was doing 25 years ago”

General Hospital Clinical Directors

“Doing nothing is not an option” – this quote from Health Minister Anne Pryke in respect of reforms to Jersey’s health system and the White Paper for change, was how the Chair of the Scrutiny panel opened her questioning to a group of seven senior clinical directors from the General Hospital. Back came the answer – for 25 years Jersey’s government has been under funding health provision and only now have they woken up to the magnitude of the task ahead. Doing nothing has clearly been official policy for the last 25 years.

The Scrutiny panel listened intently this morning to a condemnation of policy failure, oblivious that the collective responsibility rested equally with them and the Minster of Health as loyal supporters of a governing group that has been running the show all those years.

Interestingly there was not one “Jersey boy” amongst these Doctor-managers. They were all health professionals from outside the island with a somewhat jaundiced view of how Jersey politicians have been behaving. Their candid evidence was refreshing. Rarely do we hear from the managers who actually run the system on a daily basis and know its limitations, since as professionals and civil servants they do not speak out politically.  Instead, we are all too familiar with the representatives of Jersey’s political class, versed as they are in the “Jersey Way” of talking up “success” and smoothing over a litany of neglect.

It should come as no surprise that the redesign of Jersey’s health system is being carried out by a new team of professionals from the UK, revealing that the experience of managers from elsewhere is crucial to the island’s functioning. Sitting like the fairy at the top of the tree is the Health Minister.

Overheating the low-tax, low spend model

At the heart of the problem is the low tax low spend model that has been pursued and is now facing something of a scissors crisis, between diminishing revenues and rising demand. Public expectations are also rising as to the level of treatment.

One of the Directors having been in post several years, could recount that each successive year’s budget had been based on the previous year and that meant there was no point asking for more resources to develop services. Only now was there a coherent plan for the future.

The pressure on the Hospital would continue, even if that growth in demand for services was lessened by the development of community based nursing. The Hospital as a physical building needed to be either replaced or refurbished, as it was falling apart and unsuitable for adaptation to modern services. At present the General hospital has only 2 disabled parking spaces.

The cost of building a new hospital will be considerable and place additional demands on the States’ capital budget. The evident cooking of books and failure of private-public finance initiatives in the UK, mean that only state funding is feasible for such a large project.

Recruitment of staff

Much is heard about the problems of recruiting nurses to the island because of the high cost of living, but what is less well known is that sub-specialist doctors are relatively easy to attract. Driving them here is the turmoil in the NHS and reductions in funding, together with the opportunity for practitioners to work as generalists in their field, without being confined to ever more narrow specialisations as is the case in the NHS.

The nursing shortage it was suggested could be addressed by assisted housing needs as well as crèches. Given the divisive housing laws and shortage of funds for social housing this forms another aspect of the scissors crisis.

It was recognised that insufficient nurses was a potential weak link in the organisation generally. Without the infrastructure of a Hospital building and suitable staff, services could not be delivered

The impracticalities of Independence

Whether independence for Jersey is official government policy or just kite flying, the practical realities of dependence on the UK were made clear by the men with their feet on the ground.

All doctors and surgeons need insurance and this will only be provided by insurance companies if they are satisfied that identical standards of governance are being applied in Jersey as in the UK, otherwise they will refuse to insure. To achieve those seamless standards requires a modern hospital.

Since Insurance companies are driven by financial considerations, the cost of cover is becoming prohibitively expensive and may necessitate a Crown indemnity programme. Is Jersey’s government capable of underwriting all liability for negligence?

Synergies through cooperation with Guernsey were possible and imminent, but both Jersey and Guernsey remain islands with inherent logistical difficulties. Patients did not like being off island for a long time and this generated the need for multi capability hospital provision. There needs to be 24 hour acute cover in both islands, however specialists could be pan-island and consultants brought over as required.

GP’s – stuffing their mouths with gold

Earlier in the morning there appeared before the Scrutiny panel two representatives of Jersey’s general practitioners. It was evident that as a group their financial well being had been taken into consideration when designing the White paper and new community based services that were to be developed. They expressed none of the open criticism that came from the clinical directors.Instead there were tales of new groups of GP's opening clinics in purpose built buildings and successful business models.

Whereas Jersey’s politicians were blind, it was the clinical directors that could see Jersey’s health system had to undertake 25 years of catch up and there was no knowing if the community based services plan would deliver, could be funded or ever assure projected financial savings.

Will there be sadness when the Constables leave the States? – The Electoral Commission tests opinion at its first oral hearing.

It was a varied selection of fair-minded conservatives, the ill-informed, the impractical, and utopians that appeared at this first of a series of oral hearings held by the Electoral Commission. Nine people were interviewed on Thursday 21st June in the committee room of the Town Hall for around forty minutes each. Some even spoke of democracy as their starting point for States reform. 

One hopes that the next set of interviews will include some of those who have submitted the template response requesting the Commission to undertake research into what the Constables actually do in the States in terms of work and responsibilities. Certainly those that feel capable should offer themselves as witnesses to explain.

As I listened, I sought to identify the social type that the speaker represented in Jersey society – the genteel resident of St Helier, the Finance wizz-kid; the Jersey Boy; the English resident. Opinion predictably reflected social and economic status.

Will there be sadness when the Constables leave the States?

I was pleasantly surprised by the number of witnesses that argued Constables should no longer sit in the States, but opinion remained strongly divided. There were of course die hard supporters including an Honorary Policeman that even turned up wearing a florescent yellow Police jacket as if to emphasise devotion.

Pierre Horsfall, a former Senator, when cross examined and cornered, confessed that he was trying to devise an intellectual argument to keep the Constables in the States. He failed. In addition he tried to make the case for the retention of the ante bellum structure as it was in the glory days when he was a Senator back in the 1980s. Not all conservatives understand the truth of the paradox that for things to remain the same, things must change.

Some witnesses suggested the Constables might form a second, upper chamber in the States, in a bi-cameral structure. This was challenged by Senator Bailhache himself. Would they be scrutinizing legislation as does the House of Lords, he asked one witness without the slightest hint of irony? For those of us who know the true measure of a Constable, this is a cruel suggestion.  Cruel for them in that they would have no desire to perform such a role and cruel to the public to be lumbered with such an impractical structure. 

The Finance wizz kid was exasperated by dysfunctional government, poor quality States Members and the absence of political leadership during the worst economic times since 1945. It was time for fundamental change. Views expressed about the Parish and Constables were a paradoxical mix of both romantic and utilitarian. At the social level it was recognised they offered a focus for community (mothers and toddlers groups), but the Parish administration needed to be centralised to replace the bureaucratic duplication of functions that might otherwise be organised on an island-wide basis. Financial savings were of greater priority than the inevitable diminution in status and respect for Constables and Honorary system that would follow.

Idealists, cynics and the ill-informed

It was evident that many of the witnesses had no real idea of how the States actually worked and who did what in government. This led some to devise idealist schemes based on ideological beliefs rather than analysis or experience. Perhaps the “comfort factor”, of prosperous living, meant they lived lives detached from a dysfunctional government that others more closely engaged or better informed knew all too well.

As an example of simple conservative prejudice, one witness emphasized that no one with a criminal conviction should be able to stand for election. Senator Bailhache pointed out this was the case already as anyone convicted of an offence carrying a sentence of three months in prison was disqualified. Even if the witness knew this, it was not sufficient and they wanted it to be even more restrictive than now. Of course driving offences were to be excluded. These were not real sins, just minor peccadilloes it seems.

Is Jersey a Town or a Country?

Senator Bailhache had a revealing comment when Robin Hacquoil, a former Deputy, argued that Jersey was just a town of 100,000, implying it had vain pretensions beyond its capacity. Bailhache could not let that one pass and interjected “We are a country, not a town”. To this folie de grandeur Hacquoil’s drole reply was “We are far from being a country as far as I am concerned.”

Happy snappers

Channel TV got to film in the allotted first few minutes of the hearing and bloggers were given the same freedom, once I had asked, though none were there to film. The JEP sent a reporter for part of the hearings and a photographer arrived late wanting to take a snap in the middle of a hearing. He got the opportunity to do so, which was also extended to “citizens’ media”, again after I had asked. I didn’t have a camera and had no intention of taking a photograph, but I thought it as well to enquire – equality of treatment and all that.

Absent members

Two of the “lay” Commission members Dr. Jonathan Renouf and Professor Ed Sallis were both absent.

Commission member Colin Storm had some perceptive cross examination of witnesses whilst Senator Bailhache adeptly kept others from straying away from central issues and onto the merits of Zebra crossings at First Tower. James Baker, the Deputy representative on the Commission, asked a few questions and no doubt felt he had made a contribution.

Witnesses

All witness interview will be transcribed and made available in addition to their written submissions which are already published on the EC website -  http://www.electoralcommission.je/current-submissions/

Those giving evidence were:

Janice Eden

Robin Hacquoil – former Deputy of St Peter

Rodney Ison

Pierre Horsfall – former Senator

Robert Kirby

Ian Syvret

Chris Parlett

Darius Pearce

Brian Bullock

70.5% Turnout!! Guernsey put us to shame.

So what is the problem with the Jersey political system that in a district like No 1 St Helier around 60% of registered electors do not vote? How can there be such a vast difference from Guernsey with this morning’s general election turnout of 70.50%? One district, The West, achieved an amazing figure of 76%.

Guernsey is contemplating a return to some form of island wide election, but the results with 7 districts electing around six candidates each, seems to have the electorate engaged.

It’s interesting that Senator Bailhache's electoral commission has sought to exclude the issue of voter turnout from its remit. The disparity between Jersey and Guernsey is such an embarrassment for the defenders of the status quo, let alone the "lets have a States made up of Constables and a few others" brigade.

“Friends and mates” - the Electoral Commission selects its lay members.

A short list of 9 persons for the three non States member positions on the Jersey Electoral Commission has been drawn up out of 25 applicants. We may never know who applied and whether they did so with any genuine hope, but the list of nine will no doubt appear soon.

When the Electoral Commission was first mooted last year there was a belief that it might take a fresh look at the stalled process of democratic reform and reinvigorate the initiative laid down in 2000 by the Clothier Report. It was a short lived hope.

This stage in the selection of three “lay” candidates for the Electoral Commission offers some insights into what has been happening and is likely to continue in the future. The letter to unsuccessful candidates (see below) explicitly states that the “chosen” have been selected by none other that the Commission chairman, Senator Bailhache and a member of PPC. That member it should be noted is not the chairman of PPC, but Senator Sara Ferguson, a loyal supporter of Senator Bailhache. If those chosen  turn out to be simply friends and pals that share similar views and vision, it should come as no surprise. Once independence was lost and States Members controlled the process the Commission’s legitimacy was always going to be suspect.

The Electoral Commission has become and will remain highly contentious in a way that the Clothier and Carswell enquiries never were. Every step in the process will be contested. Democratic political forces in the island realised quite quickly what was happening and organised themselves to mount a resistance. That will continue, as no doubt will the scepticism of cynics to unfolding events.

Conservative Turkeys - 25: Independent Democrats - 22 – “Dream on” States Reform

Democracy suffered a sad blow following today’s vote in the States to reject Deputy Roy Le Herissier’s amendments that would have kept the Electoral Commission made up only of independents. Tomorrow will see the election of Senator Bailhache to chair the Commission together with two other States Members. This amounts to a virtual political coup by the forces of conservatism and tradition, to prevent the long overdue democratisation of Jersey’s political system.

The model of democratic government outlined in the Clothier (2000) and Carswell (2010) Reports were simply unpalatable to traditionalists, attached as they are to a system in which they see no faults and serves them well. Yet these reports set out clearly what democratic counterweights should be to an Executive that has centralised power in the hands of the Council of Ministers.

We learnt there has been 65 separate States debates on reforms, all of them inconclusive save the reduction of two Senators and a single general election day. Vested interests in various guises have delayed matters for over a decade.

"Fresh Winds" or just old F***s

Following the election of number of new Right-wing members in October 2011, including Senator Bailhache himself, there has been a concerted policy of reasserting control over the legislature. It was perceived previously as a disharmonious site of contestation between representatives of the elites and excluded subordinate social groups. The new vision is of an Executive untroubled by a "loyal" and deferential Scrutiny function manned by these new, but grossly inexperienced, members. Thoroughout the debate, this new intake was constantly referred to as the "Fresh Winds". They form part of the fight back by traditional conservative elite groups. The reactionary version of Reform that is about to be served up by the Electoral Commission is orchestrated by this movement. Senator Bailhache has already written the final report. It is the one he outlined on the Senatorial husting - retention of the Constables and 30 others, making the magic number 42 States Members. Whether he can pursuade the unwanted 9 members to volunteer for the gallows, assuming patriotic duty will not trump vested interest, remains to be seen. High voter abstention at elections will continue to be ignored.

“Vigourous open and public debate ... not corridor conspiracy”

Deputy Le Herissier is to be commended for his valiant attempt to give the Electoral Commission the semblance of an objective review, as are those other 22 States Members who supported him. His closing speech was a commendable summation of the “urban myths” that have been cultivated by the forces of conservatism.

The first myth is that Senator Bailhache is the messiah, the Homme Providentiel who will solve the political problems that beset the island and by force of will alone will cut through vested interests. Just like Vernon Tomes, who entered the States on a populist wave, threatening to refom the role of Bailiff and ended up in the hinterlands of Public Services composting sites, Senator Bailhache will lead his battalions into the sands and be consumed by those same deserts.

The second myth is that Clothier and Carswell were composed of outsiders. This is simply wrong. Both had a heavyweight representation of Jersey Advocates, local businessmen and prominent community figures. Much of the argument from traditionalists during the debate was that outsiders could not possibly have anything to contribute. The debate had an evident odour of xenophobia combined with narrow minded insular prejudice. Ironically, even the "Englishman" and Chief Minister Gorst made comments along those lines.

Much was made of the theme that the Public are not interested in constitutional reforms, consumed as they are by economic worries. Its true, but this should not be the opportunity for conservatives to trash Reform and dig in for another decade or more. Meanwhile the public remains much abused by its government.

Eternal Traditions

Deputy Le Herissier referred to a report from the Jersey Express Newspaper in 1892 when the States had been voting on the issue of additional Deputy representation for St Helier, during which one Jurat had lamented that “The spirit of the Jersey People” was “apathy”. The subsequent elections of 1895 saw no contested seats save in the parish of Trinity.

The public were not completely docile. It should be noted that there has been “resistance” in St Clement and St Helier, where Parish Assemblies voted in favour of Deputy Le Herissier’s amendments to keep the Electoral Commission independent. There was also a small demonstration outside the States building as members left around lunchtime. The media noted the dissent and carried the message in their reports of the day. The so called "Progressives" inside the States did not provide much public leadership and it remained to civil society activists to lead the way. Note that for the future.

 

On a local note, District 1 St Helier residents may wish to ponder why they put Deputy James Baker top of the poll. Not unexpectedly he voted like a Turkey but has yet to cluck in the Chamber. Incidentally he was one of about four who voted against a register of States Members' interest being published on line. So much for openess and transparency.

St Helier backs keeping the Electoral Commission independent - 53 in support and 3 against

There was a good attendance at the Town Hall yesterday evening for a special Parish Assembly, which resulted in 53 votes being cast in favour and 3 against a resolution to support the amendments of Deputy Roy Le Herissier that would keep the Electoral Commission independent.

This result is all the more impressive as the majority of those present were there to attend for the 13 items of licensing assembly. That they arrived with no knowledge of the issue and with no preconceived ideas means that they were swayed by the power of argument.

There were eight States Members in the audience and it was noted that St Helier deputies Rod Bryans and Jackie Hilton did not vote; I think we know how they will be voting on the big day. It would have useful to have heard from them or others prepared to defend the PPC plan. I hope both will reflect and note that there was mass support for our resolution amongst those attending. What would their constituents really want? What does this meeting say about public opinion when afforded respect and allowed to express its views?

This was a successful follow up to the Parish Assembly in St Clement last week, which also produced a favorable result. Hopefully the message will get out to States Members, when they debate the issue on 6^th March, that there is significant public concern about the plan to have three States Members on the Electoral Commission and that PPC’s Projet P.5 as drafted is unacceptable. They should refuse to be railroaded by strong personalities and exercise their judgment to create an Electoral Commission that will be objective.

Here are the speeches by Deputy Roy Le Herissier and myself. We also had contributions from both authors of the Minority Report, Deputies Montfort Tadier and Judy Martin, both of whom sit on PPC, as well as a number of strong contributions from the floor.

KEEP THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION INDEPENDENT! - St Helier Parish Assembly - Wednesday 29th

Following on from the success in St Clement last week, a special St Helier Parish Assembly has been called this Wednesday 29^th February to keep the Electoral Commission independent.

The first issue on the agenda in the Town Hall at 7.30pm will be a resolution to support the amendments of Deputy Roy Le Herissier that seek to restore the spirit and integrity of the original proposition debated and passed by the States last year. Deputy Le Herissier will be addressing the Assembly to explain the impact of his amendments and why the public should be urging their States representatives to support him.

Here is the resolution:

 "to consider the merits of the proposition of the Privileges and Procedures Committee (Projet 5 of 2012 Electoral Commission: composition and terms of reference) and further to consider the amendments thereto lodged by Deputy R G Le Herissier and to decide whether or not to express support for those amendments and advise the Connétable, the ten Deputies and the ten Senators accordingly;"

To understand the way in which the PPC’s proposition P.5/2012 fails to embody the terms of the proposition passed by the States in 2011, I have sought to set out  below the salient changes to both the TERMS OF REFERENCE and to the COMPOSITION of the Electoral Commission.

Before that, you can listen to interviews with two of the four persons that requisitioned the forthcoming  Assembly, Darius Pearce and myself, explaining why it was called and what we hope to achieve.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION - TERMS OF REFERENCE

P15/2011  (As approved by the States in Debate on 15.03.2011 )

“1. The Electoral Commission shall consider all the following areas –

· Classes of States member

· Constituencies and mandates

· Number of States members

· Terms of office

· The functions of the electoral process [Amendment approved duringDebate]

· Voting systems

· Voter registration ”

As revised by PPC in P5/2012 (Lodged 13.01.2012)

“1. The Electoral Commission shall consider all the following

areas –

· Classes of States member;

· Constituencies and mandates;

· Number of States members; ”

Deputy Le Herissier Amendments to P5, REINSTATES TWO OF THE THREE ITEMS LISTED IN P15 BUT OMITTED IN P5:

· The functions of the electoral process;

· Voting systems;

ELECTORAL COMMISSION – COMPOSITION

P.15/2011  (As approved by the States in Debate on 15.03.2011 )

P.15 proposed the Electoral Commission should comprise “a Chairman and 2 other members from outside the Island and of 3 Jersey residents”. This was amendment so as

“to request the Privileges and Procedures Committee, after consultation, to bring

forward proposals for debate ahead of the debate on the Annual Business Plan 2012

detailing the proposed composition of the Electoral Commission, …;”

R.54/2011 PPC Consultation document (13.05.2011)

In R.54/2011, PPC listed 3 possible options for the composition of the Commission: -

Option 1 – Chairman and 2 members from outside Jersey, 3 members from Jersey;

Option 2 – Chairman from outside Jersey, 3 or 4 local members;

Option 3 – No outside members – Chairman and members from Jersey.

R110/2011 PPC Report (07.09.2011)

PPC duly reported and recommended the Commission comprise: - 5 members, with a

local Chairman, 2 members from Jersey and 2 expert members from outside the

Island.

As revised by PPC in P5/2012 (Lodged 13.01.2012)

“(a) to agree that the Commission should be comprised of 3 members of the States, one of whom shall be its Chairman, together with 3 other persons with appropriate skills and experience who are not members of the States, appointed by the States on the recommendation of the Privileges and Procedures Committee following a recruitment process overseen by the Jersey Appointments Commission;”

Deputy Le Herissier Amendments to P5, WHICH WILL THEN READ:

“(a) to agree that the Commission should be comprised of 7 independent members, one of whom shall be its Chairman, possessing appropriate skills and experience, appointed by the States on the recommendation of the Privileges and Procedures Committee following a recruitment process overseen by the Jersey Appointments Commission;”

Push back against PPC coup – Coordinated Meetings defend independence of Electoral Commission

Those genuinely concerned about the fate of constitutional and political Reform in Jersey would be well to attend a series of meetings organised to raise public awareness of the dangers posed to the Electoral Commission by the Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC) Proposition P5/2012, due to be debated by the States on 6th March.

PARISH ASSEMBLY  ST CLEMENTS TUESDAY 22ND FEBRUARY 7.00PM
PARISH ASSEMBLY  ST HELIER WEDNESDAY 29TH FEBRUARY 7.30PM

PPC were supposed to be implementing a decision of the States taken in 2011 to establish an independent Electoral Commission. Following what amounts to a coup,  the forces of conservativism on PPC have produced a Proposition that will subvert the independence of the Electoral Commission by packing it with States Members and limiting the remit of its enquiry. Were this to succeed, Reform, in its broadest democratic sense, would be derailed for another generation.

Meetings, Meetings, Meetings

The first meeting begins this week with a Parish Assembly in St Clements on Tuesday 21^st February at 7.00pm.

Residents in District No.1 St Helier have called a Parish Assembly for Wednesday 29th February at 7.30pm.  The Electoral Commission will be the first item on the agenda.

Deputy Roy Le Herissier will be speaking in both St Clement and St Helier in support of his amendments to the PPC Propostion (P5/2012) to restore the independence of the Commission. Others speakers may be invited.

The Jersey Rights Association had also planned to hold a meeting in the form of a public debate however this has been cancelled as they were unable to secure speakers in favour of the PPC proposition. Alas, disdain is the usual modus operandi of those on the Right and a refusal to engage with opponents was to be expected. It is understood the JRA may hold a meeting at a later date.

Resolution

The Parish Assembly will debate and vote on the following resolution:

“To consider the merits of the proposition of the Privileges and Procedures Committee (Projet 5 of 2012, Electoral Commission: composition and terms of reference) and further to consider the amendments thereto lodged by Deputy R. G. Le Herissier and to decide whether or not to express support for those amendments and advise the Connétable, the ten Deputies and the ten Senators accordingly.”

Reform delayed

Reform of the States has been an issue for at least a decade and longer, with the landmark Clothier Report in 2000 setting out concrete proposals for a modernised structure. Changing the “1948 Constitution” has met stiff resistance from power holders and vested interests opposed to democratisation. It is no surprise to see Senator Philip Bailhache, a former Crown Officer and Bailiff, leading the forces of privilege. This issue is often presented as “turkeys not voting for Christmas”, yet it is more complex than simply vested interest resisting change, it a very conscious refusal to take steps that would open up the political system to broader democratic participation.

The States has been incapable of reforming itself in any meaningful way, in spite of the important Clothier and Carswell reports. Positive models and sound principles have been ignored in favour of pragmatism. The only positive step forward has been a single election day for all members. The arbitrary removal of two Senators was a gesture towards reducing the number of States Members without any intellectual case having been made for what is the optimum number. The fault lies not with the reports but with the reluctance of the States.

The magic number “42”

During the elections Sir Philip Bailhache outlined his view of “reform”. This amounted to no more than the retention of the 12 Constables and reduction of the others to 30 members. Retaining the Constables is justified ideologically as “maintaining the Parish link”. The reality is more prosaic; the Constables provide a voting block that can be relied upon to support political leaders comprised mainly of senior Senators. A passive bloc sustains an active leadership group.

Kicking the can down the road

The States agreed to the creation of an Electoral Commission aware that they were incapable of making any significant headway on the issue of constitutional reform. It was a classic act of prevarication and delay.

PPC Putsch 

The States debated and approved Proposition P15/2011 for the creation of an Electoral Commission and left PPC with the practical implementation.

However, with the election of Senator Philip Bailhache to the States at the October elections and his membership of the new PPC, the intentions of the original Proposition have ended up being subverted.

Using their majority on PPC, the supporters of Senator Bailhache have created Proposition (P5/2012) that loads the Commission with an equal number of States Members whilst limiting the remit of enquiry. Worse still, Senator Bailhache has expressed his desire to sit on the Electoral Commission and act as its chairman.

The Electoral Commission was conceived as being made up exclusively of lay members. States Members were excluded as it was perceived they could never be impartial or provide the necessary objectivity. Lay member were conceived of as having no existing vested interest or preconceived notions. The PPC Proposition (P5/2012) includes three States Members.

Minority Report

PPC comprises seven members and those supporting Senator Bailhache were Senator Ferguson, Deputy Moore and Constable Norman.

So concerned by overall developments were Deputies Montfort Tadier and Judy Martin, two members of PPC, that they were moved to produce a Minority Report dissenting from P5/2012 and setting out the arguments why the Electoral Commission needs to remain independent.

Le Herissier amendment

With two lodged amendments to P5/2012 Deputy Le Herissier seeks to restore the intention of the Propostion as debated in 2011 for an Electoral Commission comprising only lay members and no State Members. These will be considered by the States on 6th March.

It is believed that a further more substantive amendment Proposition will be presented to reinstate the original terms of reference.

The forthcoming meetings will give the public an opportunity to resist the the coup on PPC that has subverted the cause of Reform.

Daniel Wimberly proposed the creation of an Electoral Commission and lodged P15/2011 which the States debated and approved. His recent letter to the JEP in defence of the original spirit of his propostion can be read here.

Deputy Le Herrisier, author of two amendments and Deputy Tadier, co-author of the Minority Report, outline their concerns in an interview on the Tom Gruchy blog

1781 and all that

Which side would you have been on during the American Revolution (War of Independence) and why? This was the question that no one was asking when on Saturday there was a commemoration in the Royal Square of the Battle of Jersey. The 6^th January used to be the Jersey national day until it was replaced by Liberation Day in the post second world war era. Once again there were red coats in the square and a montage of Copley’s painting of the death of Major Peirson.

Channel Islanders merchants fought on both sides during the American War, some from conviction and others as a lucrative business. Certain families made sure they had relatives on the other side to minimise losses.

The victory was made much of by the British government at a time when the war against the American colonists and their French allies was not going well.

The one date that remains forgotten is 28^th September 1769 ("the Jersey Revolution") when islanders made their own history and laid the foundations for a democratic government. To this event there are no monuments to participants nor official ceremonies. Popular revolt and its consequences is still something about which modern rulers remain uncertain.

Here Geraint Jennings and I talk to Tom Gruchy junior about war and memory.

Vive le Roi!