A desperate attempt to rewin political consent - No Reform just more Referendums on Clothier and Constables,

As expected todays States debate on electoral reform was shambolic. 

The highlights of the day were: 

1. Debut of Reform Jersey – successful lobby in Royal Square
2. Ozouf Machiavellianism – Proposition pulled to be last man standing 
3. Paralysis – political right unable to break with gerrymandered past 
4. Referendums on Clothier and Constables in Oct 2014

 Enter Reform Jersey

Reform Jersey made its debut in the Royal Square this morning on the political stage to lobby States Members arriving for the debate. Being 5^th November, it was appropriate there should be Guy Fawkes masks and barrels of make believe gunpowder as props to add a little comedy. Posters with demands and slogans made clear it was time to stop the gerrymandering that has been in place since 1948, if not for centuries. St Helier, with one third of the island population should have political representation to match.

Master tactician

It was masterly tactics, like a card dealer taking an Ace from the bottom of the pack, Senator Ozouf sought to “defer” his proposition P93/2013 until later in the debate. He did so coyly suggesting it did not command the prospect of a majority by being debated first and should therefore act as a “fall back proposal”. States Members were aghast at the audacity but could do nothing.

Senator Ozouf’s grand plan is to leave P93 as the last man standing after all other propositions have been lost.  Fall they did and by 5pm those of Deputies Pitman, Green, the Constable of St Mary and that of PPC itself had all been relegated to the dustbin. P93 is in fact Option B from the April Referendum slightly tweaked to give St Helier two extra Deputies because of the “perceived” inequality of representation between it and other places. It remains a gross gerrymander that leaves Constables in place and does nothing to address the historical Town- Country divide. PPC’s academics in their report ranked it as among the worst by the criteria of under representation.

The loss of Option B in July, left the party of government and the right fuming with impotence. What they thought was going to be a walk in the park turned out to be a humiliation as States Members baulked at the prospect of reduction in their numbers. Ever since there have been behind the scenes activity to get Option B back on the rails.

The myth Option B ever commanded a majority

A number of members from the right kept referring in their speeches to the public choice in the Referendum having been ignored in the July vote. There is a myth, perpetuated by the media, that Option B commanded a majority, when in fact it never did, albeit mathematically winning only after Option C voters’ second preferences were transferred. The Referendum was only ever advisory, or as Senator Bailhache referred to it on BBC Radio Jersey on the day after. as a “glorified opinion poll”. Had it ever been intended to be binding, States Members would have been swarming all over the detail well in advance. Accountability is something States Members utterly detest.

In particular, the Constable of St Helier used some rather quaint turns of phrase, referring to Option B as “the proposition of the people” and “the people’s choice”, which the States had responsibility to implement. This all sat in a most peculiar fashion, as the Constable had officially declared as a supporter of Option A, albeit his subsequent conduct on PPC, of which he was then Chairman, and now, raise questions as to that professed loyalty.  Incidentally, the voters of St Helier had no doubt that Option B was a gerrymander and by a ratio of 2 to 1, supported Option A.

Paralysis

As the various propositions fell, it was quite evident that the Assembly had no enthusiasm for the cause of reform. There were a number of classic speeches that illustrate that the political class as a whole are incapable of embracing democratic changes.

Deputy Le Bailly of St Mary came out with some memorable reactionary phrases. He confused the Venice Commission with the Vienna Convention, describing it as “another European Directive akin to Brussels”. It was better not to “mess with the Constitution” and instead concentrate on the things that mattered to people, namely unemployment and affordable housing. All of which is an code for doing nothing. He intended to vote against all the propositions before the House.

The Constable of St Mary, a former member of the Electoral Commission, faced derision when she came out with the observation that just because one third of the island population lives in St Helier it "doesnt follow they should have one third of the representatives". 

Why might that be so one has to ask the Constable? Why do 1700 people in a constituency called St Mary have two representatives, whilst another constituency with 30,000 only has eleven?

The answer is, as she knows, but cannot admit, that it ensures power in the States rests in the hands of the wealthy to the detriment of working people in urban areas. This is what is meant by gerrymandering.

Referendums

After the propositions of PPC and that of Deputy Green had sunk without trace, there remained floating on the surface two pieces of debris marked Referendum. Somehow the Assembly, in its inimicable fashion, had mustered a majority in favour of not one but two referendums to be held at the same time as the October 2014 elections. That they are mutually contradictory shows how absurd the process of reform has become.

The referendums will be: 

1.    “with a single Yes/No question to ask voters whether they agree that the Constables should remain as members of States Assembly as an automatic right“ 

2.    “with a single Yes/No question to ask voters whether they agree that the States Assembly should, with effect from the 2018 elections, be comprised of a single category of members elected on a parish basis in accordance with the recommendation of …(the ‘Clothier’ Report)”

  As we have already seen referendums are the work of the devil.
 

“A British political elite which used to detest and dismiss the idea of referenda is suddenly in favour of them all over the place in defence of the shibboleth of parliamentary sovereignty. This is about the challenges of political disconnect, lack of trust and legitimacy, and a desperate attempt to rewin political consent.”

Gerry Hassan

The three barrels,standing on their own in the Royal Square next to the States Building, were a reminder that governments in the modern age rule only with the consent of the people.

Guy de Fawkes - THE ONLY JERSEYMAN TO ENTER PARLIAMENT WITH GOOD INTENTIONS

Tomorrow, 5^th November, Guy Fawkes Day, the States of Jersey will commence one of their miserable and interminable debates on reform of the electoral system that have been ongoing for over a decade. The outcome, which will probably follow three days of discussion, will be nothing much. The political class are paralysed, incapable of democratising and modernising for fear of losing control of a gerrymandered system that has served them well for 60 years, if not several centuries. Meanwhile that same political class ignores 70% voter abstention at elections and remains oblivious to their own lack of legitimacy.

Since the gerrymander of Option B fell at the last hurdle, the political class has changed tack, saying that reform is no longer important and that we should move on to “more important things”. The media continues to winge that the States failed to implement Option B even though it has a majority in the Referendum, on the basis that if they repeat a lie enough times someone is bound to believe it.

Whilst for many there is simply a groan of resignation, for others there is increasing indignation and impatience.  What is to be done, is as ever, the smouldering question.

Town and Country agree women are necessary in the States - The Women of 1954

If youth, good looks and breeding were enough for someone to get elected to the States of Jersey, then Joan Graves should have topped the poll in St Helier No 3 in December 1954. Had she been elected she would have been the youngest member of the States.

Electors do seem to go on good looks, especially when confused by government officialdom and told they have to vote for more than one candidate in a multi seat constituency like St Helier No 1.  This might explain why James Baker topped the poll for Deputy in St Helier No 1 in 2011. Chasing blonds, dumb or otherwise, has been a fatal obsession regretted at leisure.

Mrs Joan Graves (nee Seymour) candidate for Deputy St Helier No 3, 8th December 1954 (Image The Evening Post)

 

The Deputies elections of 1954 were variable for women candidates. Whilst Mrs Graves was not elected, both Deputy Mrs Phyllis Green in St Saviour No 2 and Mrs Gwyneth Huelin in St Brelade were elected unopposed. Those elections saw the first ever woman Deputy Mrs Ivy Forster lose her seat in St Helier No 2, having topped the poll in 1951, following backlash over a scandal of poor living conditions for the elderly in Sandybrook Hospital and the responsibility of the Health Committee on which she happened to serve.

Mrs Graves was described by the Evening Post in their synopsis of candidates “as happily married with one little child”, an observation it extended to none of the male candidates in that election. 

At her meeting organised at the Sun Works for electors of No 3 District, she was introduced by Mr E Le Quesne. It was he who had proposed Mrs Gwyneth Huelin in St Brelade, the chairman of the Island Federation of Women’s Institutes.  Mrs Graves it seems was a protégée of a group backing women candidates.

In her speech to electors, Mrs Graves made express criticism of a recent public housing scheme by the Housing Committee which was three miles away from the nearest school, some without bathrooms. Whilst housing was being built for the working classes by government, some of it was of poor quality. It appears one candidate in St Brelade, presumably Deputy H.M. Gibaut, had snobbishly suggested that bathrooms were too good for working people. Mrs Graves by contrast, was calling for a programme of house and flat construction that contained three essentials: main drainage, electricity and bathrooms. She did not seek to increase taxation to pay for these schemes, rather “by maintenance of those industries which already keep taxation at the lowest level, namely tourism and farming.” She also called for nursery schools where children could be left when their parents went to work.

Before concluding her address Mrs Graves sought to answer a letter that had appeared anonymously in The Evening Post under the heading “An Odd Claim”. She said that she had only moral support from her father and had to earn her own living – her husband having his wage and she hers.

Mrs Graves came from the Seymour family of hoteliers and her address is given as the Pomme D’Or Hotel, profession Hotelier. She was nominated by the president of the Jersey Medical Society “who considered there should be more female representation in the States” and cited the good work done by Deputies Green and Forster.

Clearly attempts were being made to promote more women in the States, but ones who came from the business class. Whilst obviously a wealthy candidate with connections, Joan Graves may not have had the personal skills necessary as a good orator. She admitted coyly “I am not a political speech maker” and continued “I am not like some of our politicians who have ‘the gift of the gab’” She did not stand again, having, as the Evening Post would say now of all unsuccessful candidates of the right, "just missed out".

Advertisement by Mrs Joan Graves in The Evening Post (Image Evening Post)

Why have women’s rights in Jersey not advanced in the last 11 years?” – it’s the government’s fault, stupid!

The organisers of Thursday morning’s breakfast seminar ’Advancing Women in Politics & Public Life’ were undoubtedly surprised by the numbers wishing to attend. Had they chosen a venue larger than the Grand Hotel’s 160 places it could have been filled. The key note speaker, Tessa Jowell, former Labour MP, was clearly a draw and did not disappoint.

The Top Quartile

The event was a slightly curious one, and even Senator Sir Philip Bailhache alluded to this in his introduction to Tessa Jowell, observing that the majority of the women present in the room were in the upper quartile of society, or ‘aspiring to get there’. 

The atmosphere, with women dressed in their office attire, meant it could easily have been a Finance seminar about the latest developments in funds management. Indeed, the sponsors EY, formerly Ernst & Young accountants, had kindly provided a brochure on each seat entitled “Time for change – recruiting for Europe’s boardrooms”. Surely not, Time4Change?

In fact, the event was to discuss the position of women in Jersey society and the obstacles to their advancement – a far more ticklish subject. Whilst some clearly came because the “glass ceiling” keeps women off Boards of Directors, others had more prosaic issues like expensive child care and the absence of statutory maternity leave and pay. Regardless of class position, all these women shared a common experience in that as women they face discrimination precisely because they are women.

So what was the seminar supposed to achieve? Even at the end, I was left wondering. Here was a government funded trust, the Jersey Community Relations Trust (JCRT), tentatively raising the issue of gender equality in a public meeting. We know that in Jersey the word equality is only ever mentioned in hushed tones. 

What have Sir Philip Bailhache and Deputy Kristina Moore ever done for women?

The key note speaker Tessa Jowell called herself a “feminist”, yet the panel could not have been more eminently respectable, with a former Bailiff, Senator Sir Philip Bailhache, a women Deputy, Kristina Moore and an EY partner, another man. Karen Rankin, head of CTV, acted as moderator at question time. It was all terribly bourgeois. What was the hidden agenda?

I asked myself à la Monty Python, what have Sir Philip Bailhache and Deputy Kristina Moore ever done for women? I have never heard either raise issues in the States relating to discrimination or equality. So why were they there? 

The excellent JCRT report was merely alluded to by Deputy Moore with her ever grinning Cheshire Cat approach to difficult issues in politics, yet it contains a damning litany of government failure and neglect. 

No one on the panel ever mentioned that the Jersey government consistently refuses to sign up to The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (“CEDAW”), often described as an international bill of rights for women. This was adopted in 1979 by the United Nations General Assembly and signed up to by the UK in 1982.

The Emperor's New Clothes moment - No political will

The whole meeting never seemed to get round to critiquing government policy on these issues. Not that is until the closing seconds of question time to the panel.

Prior to that, Karen Rankin, from CCTV moderated question time in a way that carefully chose questions from pre-selected individuals in the audience that would not be too controversial. The party line was the advacement of professional women in Jersey society.

Then it happened.

Half sitting and half standing, a woman at the front of the meeting rose and without the aid of the microphone started addressing an issue she felt had been entirely missed.

There was a reason nothing had changed for women in Jersey in the past 11 years she said and the reason was simple – there was no political will in the States of Jersey and in government to bring about change.

There was a stunned silence. Slightly inaudible at the outset, others listened more attentively to what the woman had to say and then applause, muffled initially, became a crescendo of endorsement. Someone had said it; the Emperor had no clothes.

There we are; it was out; government was to blame.

Tessa Jowell had been saying it all along in her speech. Until there was legislation through the UK Parliament, the cajoling of employers over maternity rights and pay had proved very limited. It took the election of a Labour government with a positive agenda to bring about change.

The woman had reminded the meeting that the draft Discrimination Law was one of the items offered up by the Home Affairs Department to the Comprehensive Spending Review cuts. It saved £100,000 and created several years law drafting delay. Did discrimination count for so little? The answer is yes. The government of Jersey does not make women's issues a priority in any sense.

The Discrimination Law has now been debated and approved by the States. Legislation on the issue of Race will become law sometime next year once approved by the Privy Council. It is only proposed to deal with issues of gender in the near future. The Social Security Minister has no firm timetable. Women ought to be angry at this feet dragging.

The meeting neatly illustrates a conundrum in Jersey politics. Much needed social reform, including issues relating to women, has been marginalised. The conservatism of the government and poltical elite is holding back developments. 

There will have been those present who probably saw the event as one of how to get more women in the Boardroom. Yet others recognised there are changes, that elsewhere are uncontroversial, are long overdue. False respectability is hindering social advance.

One issue of contention was that of quotas for women in political parties and to Boards. Tessa Jowell told us that even though the Labour Party operated women short lists for candidates, only one third of their MPs were women.

The reaction from the panel and a number of the "selected" speakers from the floor, was adamant that in Jersey there should be no special positive discrimination in favour of women. The best man for the job principle should prevail.

Sir Philip Bailhache considered that women were deterred from standing for election as a consequence of the "aggressive and immodest behaviour by a minority of States Members". In other words, the States Chamber was no place for Ladies. He was of course pandering to a favourite prejudice, blaming the small number of Deputies that actually ask questions and challenge government policy.

“Bailhache’s Babes”

The organisers of the seminar were coy about their future ambitions. It was said the JCRT would progress their campaign via their website. Clearly without some organisational outcome the event would be wholly wasted. Would they be forming a political organisation to elect women to the States of Jersey in 2014 elections? There was a hint throughout the meeting that this ought to happen. 

Yet, what can we hope for? Will it be “Bailhache’s Babes” standing for election or will it be somewhat more militant?

March, march—many as one/Shoulder to shoulder and friend to friend.

Ever sensitive to social class I could not help noticing a telling remark from Senator Bailhache in response to a question from the floor from a Jersey College for Girls student named Yasmin. She had been discussing with a boy about the issue of equal pay for women – the gender gap, which we know is some 17% between men and women. This lad said it was the fault of women as they should be asking their employers for a pay rise.

Sir Philip replied by saying that Victoria College boys could be a little trying at times. Victoria College? Why did he assume this JCG student would only be talking to a Vic College boy?