 | |||
| ESTABLISHMENT GRANDEES AND CANDIDATES - Town Hall, Oct 19th 2011.Pierre Horsfal, James Baker, Sir Philip Bailhache and Mary O'Keefe Burgher (left to right) | . |
The October 2011 elections saw the Jersey electorate lurch to the political Right. It was a repetition of 2008 when economic uncertainty saw a flight to safety and toward those that offered a modicum of stability. With the economy in deeper recession than 2008 that feature was repeated.
Frightened by the social polarization that was impelling forward a number of vocal and capable critics as States Members, the business class and wealthy organised a political revaunche.
The need by the Elite for a saviour saw the election of Philip Bailhache on an agenda of cleansing the States of representatives of the working classes and anyone else that challenged their interest. Under the banner of pseudo Reform a series of measures will be implemented to block the further entry of dissent
Deputy Bob Hill in St Martin, a moderate, capable and essentially straight politician fell to the fear factor, being replaced by an unthreatening traditionalist. Elsewhere the organisation factor saw the election of Rod Bryans and Phil Rondel, both loyalists of the Ozouf Right. A well run campaign mobilised the vote, with behind the scenes use of networks.
Frightened by the social polarization that was impelling forward a number of vocal and capable critics as States Members, the business class and wealthy organised a political revaunche.
The need by the Elite for a saviour saw the election of Philip Bailhache on an agenda of cleansing the States of representatives of the working classes and anyone else that challenged their interest. Under the banner of pseudo Reform a series of measures will be implemented to block the further entry of dissent
Deputy Bob Hill in St Martin, a moderate, capable and essentially straight politician fell to the fear factor, being replaced by an unthreatening traditionalist. Elsewhere the organisation factor saw the election of Rod Bryans and Phil Rondel, both loyalists of the Ozouf Right. A well run campaign mobilised the vote, with behind the scenes use of networks.
St Helier District No.1 – “The very model of a modern Ozoufite candidate”
The success of organisation propelled the official Ozoufite candidate James Baker into top position in St Helier District No.1 to the surprise of all except his backers.
Minimum wage labour erected posters and delivered leaflets and letters. Having no previous political credentials and living in a Country Parish was little impediment to a business candidate. At the Hustings there was no evident oratorical skill. Measured and rehearsed opinions echoed the official party line of the Establishment with an audacious and telling assertion of Bailhache for Chief Minister.
The election literature was slick and deceptive. Many of the gullible might even have believed that he was against GST, so well drafted were the statements of intent. Clearly this was a product designed by others. Image triumphed.
I have yet to meet anyone that claims to have had James Baker nock on their door, whereas I acquired the reputation for having made up to three visits in certain areas. Since no one has actually had a conversation with James Baker, it must remain open how he will perform when not managed. Mastering the intricacies of the Social Security System and Income support may prove challenging. Perhaps requests for help in those areas will be redirected to the other two Deputies in the District.
It is to be feared that District No.1 will be ill served by James Baker during the next three years. No real commitment will be demonstrated. If there are skills of use to the Elite, there might be a fast tracking to the position of Senator, otherwise the function of “blocking pawn” will suffice to keep out a third non-Establishment Deputy in 2014.
A consequences of the success of James Baker was to displace one of the three non-Establishment sitting Deputies. It happened to be Paul Le Claire, but it could easily have been Judy Martin. Le Claire was already demoralized by an absence of preferment to minor office, based primarily on a perceived absence of ability. The Establishment will shed no tears at the loss and they probably hope it is the end of his political career, most of which has been spent as a mild but annoying irritant.
Trevor Pitman showed that valiant and principled politics can meet with success. He was only four votes less than James Baker. A socially polarised island is reflected in the two to one split of Deputies in District No1.
1,810 vote out of 5,059 – improvement?
Jersey is blighted by low voter turnout in the urban areas; St Helier in particular. At the Senatorial by-election in 2010, 872 voted out of an electorate of 4324, a 20.16% turnout or shocking 80% abstention!
Compared with the Deputy election in 2008 voter abstention fell in 2011 from 75% to 64%. The usual and abysmal 25.5% turnout on that previous occasion experienced a dramatic improvement to 36.09% this time. In 2008 1172 voted out of a registered electorate of 4,413. An additional 600 people voted in 2011.
With low worker turnout, District No.1 is always vulnerable to the success of a business class candidate. Albeit numerically inferior in absolute terms, their voters are more motivated to present at elections.
Who were the extra 600 people; why and how did they vote?
As I canvassed, I discovered a lot of intended first time voters and a number of returnees who had given up expecting anything to change. Deteriorating economic circumstances and a number of government scandals aroused sufficient anxiety to seek an honest and transparent government responsive to the interests of working people. I think I can claim credit for part of the succees in having canvassed widely. Judy Martin, Trevor Pitman and Keith Shaw all got out on the knocker to win support.
"Try again, fail again, fail better"
What of my own achievement? My 571 votes put me in 5th position and significantly 100 votes below the fourth position candidate. Four months of active campaigning amongst “the Third Estate” was not enough to overcome the inertia that sitting candidates retain. Low turnouts at election time reflect the disconnectedness of the working people that live in the district.
Many workers remain “voting virgins” even after having been in the island thirty or forty years, as do the indigenous. Amongst immigrant groups, such as the Portuguese, living as a community within a community, the levels of abstention are very high. Social exclusion is compounded by poor education and abysmal English language skills, even after decades of residence. By contrast, motivated Polish immigrants perfect their language skills quite quickly.
The reason given for not voting is that “nothing changes in Jersey” or that the system is “rotten and corrupt”. It is perceived that participation would render legitimacy and that somehow by not being involved the system is punished in so doing. Encrypted in these words is the acknowledgement that little is done for their interests by governing elites. With voter disengagement so high, it compounds the fact that they play no part in their own destiny. The Establishment has always had an unacknowledged slogan in respect of electoral participation -“the fewer, the better”.
Workers are resigned to their lot; content with the conventional solace afforded by nominal but regular wages. This is changing as wages fall though competition and growing unemployment. Resentment at increased exploitation has yet to find a political expression, other than the xenophobia that blames “immigrants” for all their ills.
I am always amazed by official media journalists who fail to understand my motivation for standing in elections. They cannot comprehend what it is to be a political activist. They are used to political butterflies whose ambition is driven by ego rather than ideology. The absence of immediate electoral success puts off these egoists, who then go away and never return.
As I watched the counters count the ballots, I was particularly gratified that my campaigning had produced a significant number of single votes for me rather than as one of three. This reflects the growing understanding amongst those voters that if qualitatively different politics are to prevail then something has to be done differently. Clearly I had persuaded a number of individuals that my politics was superior. This loyalty is something upon which to build. It is the beginning of a new consciousness. The next step will be organisation. If the Establishment can do it and succeed so can we. The time for bickering has surely passed.
As a final word, can I thank the 571 individuals who showed me their support with their votes - it was not misplaced. There will be battles in the future and they can be certain of my continued commitment to a democratic Jersey and honest government that does not ignore working people.
A HERO OF OUR TIMES
"Try again, fail again, fail better"
What of my own achievement? My 571 votes put me in 5th position and significantly 100 votes below the fourth position candidate. Four months of active campaigning amongst “the Third Estate” was not enough to overcome the inertia that sitting candidates retain. Low turnouts at election time reflect the disconnectedness of the working people that live in the district.
Many workers remain “voting virgins” even after having been in the island thirty or forty years, as do the indigenous. Amongst immigrant groups, such as the Portuguese, living as a community within a community, the levels of abstention are very high. Social exclusion is compounded by poor education and abysmal English language skills, even after decades of residence. By contrast, motivated Polish immigrants perfect their language skills quite quickly.
The reason given for not voting is that “nothing changes in Jersey” or that the system is “rotten and corrupt”. It is perceived that participation would render legitimacy and that somehow by not being involved the system is punished in so doing. Encrypted in these words is the acknowledgement that little is done for their interests by governing elites. With voter disengagement so high, it compounds the fact that they play no part in their own destiny. The Establishment has always had an unacknowledged slogan in respect of electoral participation -“the fewer, the better”.
Workers are resigned to their lot; content with the conventional solace afforded by nominal but regular wages. This is changing as wages fall though competition and growing unemployment. Resentment at increased exploitation has yet to find a political expression, other than the xenophobia that blames “immigrants” for all their ills.
I am always amazed by official media journalists who fail to understand my motivation for standing in elections. They cannot comprehend what it is to be a political activist. They are used to political butterflies whose ambition is driven by ego rather than ideology. The absence of immediate electoral success puts off these egoists, who then go away and never return.
As I watched the counters count the ballots, I was particularly gratified that my campaigning had produced a significant number of single votes for me rather than as one of three. This reflects the growing understanding amongst those voters that if qualitatively different politics are to prevail then something has to be done differently. Clearly I had persuaded a number of individuals that my politics was superior. This loyalty is something upon which to build. It is the beginning of a new consciousness. The next step will be organisation. If the Establishment can do it and succeed so can we. The time for bickering has surely passed.
As a final word, can I thank the 571 individuals who showed me their support with their votes - it was not misplaced. There will be battles in the future and they can be certain of my continued commitment to a democratic Jersey and honest government that does not ignore working people.
A HERO OF OUR TIMES
How many people voted both for Baker and Pitman?
ReplyDeleteThe psychology of the Jersey voter would challenge any analyst.
If Baker could top the poll why did Shaw not do better because he had parish networks and seemed a decent sort of guy. Certainly as good as Baker!
About 1800 voted in District 1 - with 700 giving an X to Baker - so 1100 voted against him but did Baker collect a substantial vote from suited men and their allies who did not vote for the lefties?
We shall never know because such information is not available.
fantastic post , very insightful
ReplyDeleteBeing a lawyer Nick, perhaps you should focus on the inalienable rights of the working class. When they understand the deception that goes on around them on a daily, even hourly basis, they will turn, I did!
ReplyDeleteWell, I suspect the voting patterns which anon talks about may well be available to some. Certainly, the work needed to input and analyse the data in such a small electorate would be easily achievable.
ReplyDeleteI fully expect my votes have been inputted on a spreadsheet somewhere as in St Lawrence my voter number was noted on the numbered counterfoil.
Secret ballot, the Jersey way.
Please don't go quiet. I am a firm believer in campaigning and all campaigns need leaders. It would have been wonderful to have you as a deputy but you will be just as good, if not better, as a community leader.
ReplyDeleteAND SO THE BULLYING BEGINS!
ReplyDeleteSo the people who generate the wealth you are so keen to redistribute have increased their influence in government, and you have failed to be elected once again. You can analyse it to death, but surely the message must get through to you one day ? Your policies simply aren't well enough supported to get you elected on either an island wide or parish mandate. Sorry Nick
ReplyDeleteSorry Anon,
ReplyDeleteI am flattered as usual by compliments from political activists on the Right. I do not stand for election for reasons of vanity and status unlike your pretty boys and girls. Clearly you do not understand that democracy and social justice are eternal values worthy of continued struggle, especially here.
With a thousand people about to be made redundant as fulfillment collapses this winter, many working people will be looking for leadership from those that can represent their interests both inside the legislature and on the street.
The wealth generated by working people continues to be redistributed upwards to those that have most. Therein lies the injustice.
So by your estimation, our island is only democratic if you get elected, or are you saying you knowingly stood for a position in an un-democratic government ?
ReplyDeleteAnd because somebody disagrees with you, they must be automatically be a right wing activist ?
And those people who are about to be made redundant. Aren't they employed in an industry that the likes of ATTAC, TJN and their ilk who you support, oppose because they claim it is based on tax evasion. But I guess it's ok to support employees of that tax avoidance industry when they can be used as pawns in your argument, but to criticise those employed in the Finance industry, which you naively believe is predicated almost entirely on tax avoidance ?
As for social justice, which industry (and their employees) do you suppose will largely finance the social payments, the social healthcare provision and other social services required by those made redundant, or indeed your entire beloved Public Sector ? Tourism, Farming ?
I may indeed have underestimated the intention of a long-term unemployed person in their reasons for standing for a £44K salary, but it seems that your election manifestos constantly seem to seek support from solely those with a grievance against our society. It must therefore be disappointing to learn once again that more people appear to be happy with the status quo, despite your insistence on painting our island as some sort of dystopian dictatorship.
No stomach for a response to my second comment I see ?
ReplyDeleteI believe Deputy Baker owns the recruitment agency called "Grafters", this firm sent hundreds of immigrant workers to "Indigo Lighthouse" to name but one Company, for this he charges the person he sends £10 for every week that person is employed by the firm he or she is sent to, in other words £500 a year he rakes in! What a "rip off"
ReplyDeleteWhen I arrived in Jersey 40 years ago there was a recruitment agency who would do their best to find suitable employment for each person in accordance to their skills, or just general labouring, for this, the agency charged a "one off" payment, they did not rob £500 a year from each individual!
No wonder he lives in a lovely cottage in Rozel!
Just the type of character the Establishment want in Government.
Happy to engage with an intellect. I am flattered. Perhaps ideologue would be more appropriate than activist.
ReplyDeletePART I
Jersey is not a dictatorship, I agree. The need for Bourgeois respectability is important.
The case is well put by David Runciman in a review of Nicholas Shaxson’s “Treasure Islands” where he writes [LRB 14.04.2011]:
“Islands make good tax havens, and not simply because they can cut themselves off from the demands of mainland politics. It is also because they are often tight-knit communities, in which everyone knows what’s going on but no one wants to speak out for fear of ostracism. These ‘goldfish bowls’, as Shaxson calls them, suit the offshore mindset, because they are seemingly transparent: you can see all the way through – it’s just that when you look there’s nothing there. Jersey is the template: a nice, genteel place, with a strong sense of civic responsibility and plenty of opportunities for public participation, including elections to all manner of public offices (senators, deputies, parish constables), but weak political parties, staggered ‘general’ elections, and never a meaningful change of government. ‘If you don’t like it, you can leave’ is the basic refrain of Jersey politics. Dissent is not obviously suppressed, as it might be under a dictatorship (which is why dictatorships make bad tax havens: you never know when the whole thing is going to blow up). Instead, dissent is simply allowed to wither away.”
What is crucial here is the comment about “never a meaningful change of government”. One of the most common arguments I have met whilst canvassing for not voting is that “nothing ever changes” or “you can’t change Jersey”. Pessimism and cynicism are reinforced leading to 60% voter abstention island wide. This time round in St Helier No.1 we managed to get abstention down from 75% to 60%, so that is an achievement.
The electorate cannot structure the government; there are no policy choices. A system based on individuals not parties, leaves all but insiders with total incomprehension as to the values, policies and interests represented of those individuals and their role in the bigger picture.
There is deep voter ignorance about politics. It starts at school with the youth unable to explain the difference between a Senator and a Centenier; a distinction they are not educated about at school lest this be seen as “indoctrination”. In many Finance workplaces discussion of politics is prohibited; not that it ever rises much above football anyway.
That the political system is so resilient to “Progressives” entering the States is significant. Most are preaching fairly moderate ideas about democratic structures of government and transparency. We have an unreformed constitution that does not recognise the separation of powers between judiciary and legislature/executive. The electoral system entrenches and preserves antiquated and undemocratic practices. Constables rarely face contested elections. The Country Parishes have an inbuilt historical predominance over the urban areas with their more popular inhabitants. There is no “democratic moment” when all face election together and the will of the Public prevails to remove or promote.
Reform, in the shape of the relatively tame proposals of Clothier and Carswell, will now be consigned to the dustbin of history.
PART II
ReplyDeleteFulfillment
Once the British government reduces significantly Low Value Consignment Relief we will see to what extent the business was not built on the sand of taking advantage of a tax loophole. It was a wheeze whilst it lasted and provided much needed employment to the unskilled and semi-skilled who are not able/capable of finding work in Finance. It also sucked in a lot of immigrant labour. This sort of competition throughout the economy, especially in construction, has undermined hourly rates for the indigenous. The resentment has increased xenophobia.
It is little consolation to the unemployed that there is income support for those with five years residence.
Dissent and discontent
The degree of discontent is surely evident from the interviews with real people that have been conducted on this blog and on similar sites. The official media spends its time promoting happy news and interviews with successful and wealthy people, whilst ignoring wider social issures and problems. This is precisely what this blog set out to do: to highlight the reality that is ignored – working people and pensioners telling their stories in their own words.
No one enters politics “just for the money” as you suspect. Some candidates may be egoists without talent; the electorate soon rumbles them after one term. The main reason for standing is for status – to become a big fish in a small pond. Working people cannot contemplate a political career unless there is a form of remuneration. How would the rent otherwise get paid? Do we want a legislature just made up of an Aristocracy with wealth and leisure to offer to public affairs?
The Romatic Era of unpaid farmers and gentlemen running a harmonious island is simply a myth. Name any and their achievements. Could anyone now justify a return of the twelve Church of England Ministers as an “Estate” in the States?
My manifestos are not wholly addressed to malcontents. They seek to represent the interests of working people and to those of liberal sentiment that believe in open government. As the Crisis develops and working people seek explanations, they will hopefully make more sense.
Thanks for your considered response.
ReplyDeleteBoth David Runciman’s and Nick Shaxson’s political ideologies are well known, and it is perhaps therefore unsurprising that their publications demonstrate a view of offshore centres which fail to come to overwhelmingly positive view of the island. The latter’s affiliation to the rabid posturing of Richard Murphy and the TJN makes it even less likely that he would publish a truly objective analysis of our island, but nevertheless, I’m sure that there are many places which would like to be condemned as ‘a nice, genteel place, with a strong sense of civic responsibility and plenty of opportunities for public participation, including all manner of public offices’.
Unless I have missed something, the island has recently conducted elections where the majority of posts were up for grabs, and is committed to an even more general election in 3 years time. How this prohibits the chance for a meaningful change of government I’m not entirely sure ?
Your assumption that comments such as ‘nothing ever changes’ and ‘you can’t change Jersey’ as overtly negative seem to be demonstrative of your own personal viewpoint, as I am sure many people would interpret them as one of the positive aspects of island life.
It is interesting that you view the low rates of voter turnout as being detrimental to only the ‘left’s’ chances of success. Again, the assumption appears to be that only those who are dis-satisfied with the island, or have a natural inclination to more socialist policies, are choosing not to cast their votes. It is indeed ironic that a reduction in St Helier No 1’s abstention rate yielded the removal of a more left leaning sitting deputy with what must assume to be a more right leaning candidate.
I don’t really understand the comment about the electorate ‘structuring the government’ but I assume you mean assessing in their own mind ?
As to there being ‘no policy choices’, I would have thought that the merest glance at the hustings reports, or candidate summaries, in the JEP, or a glance at any of the candidates websites, would have given a potential voter ample opportunity to assess a candidates policy’s, so I would refute that there were no policy choices.
There may well be ‘deep voter ignorance about politics’ but again, your assumption seems to be that this is only tarnishing the left’s chances. I think you need to realise that, if indeed voters are ignorant, they are ignorant about both ends of the political spectrum.
Your comment Re: indoctrination makes no sense, as education as to the structure of Jersey politics does not indoctrinate anybody to any political persuasion. (Indoctrination implies the favouring of one side at the expense of another).
I’m not sure what you are basing your idea that discussion of political issues is ‘prohibited’ in finance workplaces. Indeed finance companies are ever fearful of employee litigation and their reputation in the wider world, so to prohibit such discussions would render them not only open to claims of overt restriction, but to ridicule in both the population and the media.
The political system is not ‘resilient to progressives’ doing anything, as anybody is free to stand on whatever political ideology they choose. If the voting public choose not to vote for their stance, that is called democracy, of which you claim to be so fond.
Part II
ReplyDeleteWhilst disagreeing with most of your comment, I think you are absolutely correct about the constitution protecting the judicial and legislative arrangements. And I am sure that the democratically elected government will act upon the wishes of the majority of the house should the majority wish reform. Another demonstration of your cherished democracy in action.
The electoral system does not ‘preserve antiquated and undemocratic practices’. Everybody has a right to vote for whoever they choose. It might well be ‘antiquated’, as most of the electoral systems of established democracies are, but it is not undemocratic.
The Country parishes do not have ‘predominance over the urban areas’. The very opposite is in fact true, given their much lower impact on the overall Senatorial representation, and their absence of multiple districts with multiple deputy positions.
Again, unless I have misunderstood recent events, we have in fact had an election where both deputies and constables have ‘all faced election together’, and the will of the public has prevailed. Some have been removed, and some promoted to office.
Reform being consigned to the dustbin of history ? You don’t know that, it is merely your projection, and again demonstrative of your inability to see past your political bias, which as anyone can see from both your, and the above comments, appears to inhibit your ability to see Jersey’s current position objectively. Perhaps this myopia, whether wilful or otherwise, was a contributing factor to your failure to gain office again ? Perhaps the voters of St Helier number 1 were not 'ignorant', perhaps the very opposite ?
Part III
ReplyDeleteI'm struggling to find your position on the fulfillment industry. You are in favour of it providing employment, but against the fact that it created wage pressure, and was based on a tax loophole, and employed a lot of immigrants. So generally negatve about an industry that employed 100's of people becuase of its side effects ? Ok, so those people would have been employed in ?
And it appears that you are not in favour of wage competition, although this might be misinterpreting your comments ?
I must admit that I have yet to see any comments from authorities such as the police as to the increase in xenophobia in the island manifesting itself in racially motivated crime, however your defence of the 'indigenous' population does have slight undercurrents of a right wing, protectionist doctrine which I find at odds with your supposed socialist dogma.
I would have thought that income support for the unemployed would have been of great consolation to the unemployed, unless I have missed the benefits of providing no social support whatsoever ?
Dissent and Discontent
The interviews which yourself and others have published with those who feel discontent are once again overtly demonstrative of your own political leanings. I'm sure it was an oversight that no interviews with those expressing satisfaction with their position were published, in the interests of fairness and dare I say democracy ? The voting patterns at the election would seem to suggest a proliferation of the latter, rather than the former. Of course, if you ask people ' what are you unhappy about' you can expect them to fit your propoganda. Where were the answers to the questions 'what are you happy about' ?
Your adoption of the phrase 'working people' is of course just another way of saying 'working class people', and enables you to attempt to disguise that fact that you are really attempting to use the dis-satisfaction of the working class to try and get elected. Lawyers (well some lawyers), accountants, bankers, doctors and dentists, are all 'working people' so have the courage to explicitly spell out those whose plight your are hijacking for your own purposes.
If you genuinely believe that the mainstream media in Jersey ignore wider social issues, please actually have a look in the paper sometime to see the coverage that social issues and their funding receive, both in editorial and correspondence. Your assertation that teh media focuses only on good news is false, and merely another attempt to mislead without any basis in evidence.
Part IV
ReplyDeleteAs to reasons for entering politics. Are you tacitly admitting that your reason for standing was to become a big fish in a small pond ? I would have thought that, if not for the money, you would be trying to do something for teh population of this island, rather than self-agrandisement ?
And yes, of course it is fair that people are paid for their time. But as it stands Nick, you are neither a 'working person', nor, because of your upbringing and educational achievements, nor would you be classed as a 'working class person', so please don't deny that a wage was a contributing factor ?
Naming any of the achievements of previously unpaid representatives in governments of the past, is I'm afraid merely an invitation to quote the Monty Python Life of Brian sketch about what the ROmans ever did for us.
A social security system
Free healthcare
A road infrastructure
Sea and airports
One of the highest rates of GDP per capita in the world
One of the lowest rates of unemployment in the world
Really, do I need to go on ?
Your manifestos do not seek to represent the interests of 'working people' because they do not represent the interests of the lawyers, the accountants, the bankers etc. who are all 'working' people also. Those whose plight you seek to hijack are 'the working class' who struggle to make ends meet in an expensive island, so please at least be honest about your motives, which really are those of class rhetoric espoused by the socialist movement.
I am a little uncomfortable making this more overtly personal, however you are no doubt dumbfounded that once again, those of less intelligence and educational achievement have finished ahead of you in the polls, especially given that some of those would have political beliefs that were closely aligned with your own. It has to be said that, having attended hustings meetings where you have spoken in the past, your commitment and intelligence are obvious, however as revealed in some of the comments you have made in response to my own, it is your absolute conviction that you are correct about everything that can make you come across as over-bearing, and at times, condascending.
Despite what you might believe, nobody from either side of the political spectrum wishes to see people struggle or suffer. It is simply not possible to give everybody what they want, so there will always be those who are unhappy. It is however a reality of life that those who finance the system will usually have the greatest say in how that system operates. Jersey is largely a great place to live, despite how certain people might represent it, and prentending it is otherwise by overplaying every negative aspect, or encouraging a perception of class-warfare, is neither honest, nor, as the recent election results prove, realistic.
You didn't fail because the system is undemocratic, or biased, or any of that other rubbish. It is because, in general, most people would rather be here, with all its pressures, than somewhere else.
Pity this dialogue was not possible before the election and it will be forgotten before the next one. However I am always amused at the suggestion that Jersey's small army of lawyers, bankers and accountants actually generate wealth. We all know that they just skim off the top from the labours of others in distant places. Only a fool would choose to ignore the unfairness of such a position and must realise that it cannot continue unchecked. Jersey's economy is based upon myths.
ReplyDeleteIn a localised sense we have built up a local economy based upon the eploitation of others and it is a real puzzle now how to sustain Jersey's artificially inflated population of 92,000 people.
We all know that Jersey's future expenditure needs will far exceed any likley income streams and that the demands of better education, health, welfare, care and recreation cannot be provided in a "tax haven" economy which is designed to facilitate minimal public expenditure.
It is a real problem for any community - how to raise the "tax revenue" to pay for ever improving public services.
Cutting public expenditure is only a possibility if there is already waste on a grand scale but is certainly not possible where existing services are already, for the most part underfunded, underesourced, neglected and out of date.
Growth is not only an absurd dream now - it also serves to make the problem worse in this tiny island.
If the pursuit of profit is the ultimate goal and all the social benefits are mere bye-products then that is a flawed objective that must end in failure. It can be made to appear to work for a while but we do not exist in an unchanging world and standards are constantly being revised for us.
If the people of the UK choose not to bail out the next crop of failed banks then Jersey's entire economy could collapse overnight.
This Island actually produces only a few spuds and some milk that is already surviving on subsidy so the 92,000 residents can hardly look to local entrepreneurs to provide the work to generate the wages to pay the rents and mortgages and buy the food etc etc.
The fairer distribution of wealth is a world-wide problem that tax havens such as Jersey only help to perpetuate.
If the critical commentator here really believes that Jersey has the business and political skill to go it alone as an independent, self supporting state then I shall be interested to see how. The more likely scenario is that this Island will continue as a parasitic depenedency for some decades to come. I will continue to support people like Nick who seek to remove some of the unfairnesses in this system whether they are of local, national or international magnitude.
You seem to have misplaced part I of my reply:
ReplyDeleteThanks for your considered response.
Both David Runciman’s and Nick Shaxson’s political ideologies are well known, and it is perhaps therefore unsurprising that their publications demonstrate a view of offshore centres which fail to come to overwhelmingly positive view of the island. The latter’s affiliation to the rabid posturing of Richard Murphy and the TJN makes it even less likely that he would publish a truly objective analysis of our island, but nevertheless, I’m sure that there are many places which would like to be condemned as ‘a nice, genteel place, with a strong sense of civic responsibility and plenty of opportunities for public participation, including all manner of public offices’.
Unless I have missed something, the island has recently conducted elections where the majority of posts were up for grabs, and is committed to an even more general election in 3 years time. How this prohibits the chance for a meaningful change of government I’m not entirely sure ?
Your assumption that comments such as ‘nothing ever changes’ and ‘you can’t change Jersey’ as overtly negative seem to be demonstrative of your own personal viewpoint, as I am sure many people would interpret them as one of the positive aspects of island life.
It is interesting that you view the low rates of voter turnout as being detrimental to only the ‘left’s’ chances of success. Again, the assumption appears to be that only those who are dis-satisfied with the island, or have a natural inclination to more socialist policies, are choosing not to cast their votes. It is interesting in this regard that a reduction in St Helier No 1’s abstention rate yielded the removal of a more left leaning sitting deputy with what must assume to be a more right leaning candidate.
I don’t really understand the comment about the electorate ‘structuring the government’ but I assume you mean assessing in their own mind ? As to there being ‘no policy choices’, I would have thought that the merest glance at the hustings reports, or candidate summaries, in the JEP, or a glance at any of the candidates websites, would have given a potential voter ample opportunity to assess a candidates policy’s, so I would refute that there were no policy choices.
There may well be ‘deep voter ignorance about politics’ but again, your assumption seems to be that this is only tarnishing the left’s chances. I think you need to realise that, if indeed voters are ignorant, they are ignorant about both ends of the political spectrum.
Your comment Re: indoctrination makes no sense, as education as to the structure of Jersey politics does not indoctrinate anybody to any political persuasion. (Indoctrination implies the favouring of one side at the expense of another).
I’m not sure what you are basing your idea that discussion of political issues is ‘prohibited’ in finance workplaces. Indeed finance companies are ever fearful of employee litigation and their reputation in the wider world, so to prohibit such discussions would render them not only open to claims of overt restriction, but to ridicule in both the population and the media.
The political system is not ‘resilient to progressives’ doing anything, as anybody is free to stand on whatever political ideology they choose. If the voting public choose not to vote for their stance, that is called democracy, of which you claim to be so fond.
Your new friend forgets to mention Jersey's chronic housing problems with 10,000 working adults (one fifth of the working population)denied the right even to rent proper accommodation. Absurdly high rents and property prices. Much accommodation of slum standard without security of tenure. Minimum wages subsidized by income support from public funds so that employers can make extra profits. Out of date and obscure laws on so many employment and social issues. A bloated tiny legal profession charging outrageous fees and with no concern for social issues or to fight injustice. A constant rollover of working people who simply leave the island because they are not supported with adequate housing or social benefits - so that the unemployment figures are kept artificially low. Many people unable to afford doctors or dentists charges or to pay for chronic treatments. Highest levels of alcohol consumption in the world and high levels of cancer and suicide. Lack of anti-discrimination laws. Many roads unlit and poorly maintained. Lack of all-sland mains sewage and water. Heavy pollution of land through pesticides and nitrogen fertilizers with wash-off into streams and pollution of fish farms. High inflation rates. Gorey pier in a state of collapse and unable to be used commercially. Fort Regent complex a financial and social disaster, Hospital needs replacment. Inability to train or recruit essntial and skilled staff for specialist employment in health and education etc. Worsening travel connections with other places...
ReplyDeleteEven reactionary persons like ex-Bailiff and now Senator elect Philip Bailhache agrees that Jersey's standard of government is a total mess.....
Are we in the same island anonymous?
I think I forgot to mention that many of our schools underperform and there are only limited further education opportunities for many young people or older adults seeking to re-train without leaving the island.
ReplyDeleteThat museums have closed due to lack of funds, the public archive is only open part-time and has a huge backlog of uncatalogued or conserved items. Recreation and support facilities for young people are inadequate and underfunded. Home ownership is at a lower level even than Guernsey.
Public transport is inadequate yet heavily subsidized and many important areas are not served at all. The bus station closes when it is most needed.
The Freedom of Information Act is still years away and there is a lack of effective remedies and appeals against the most basic government maladministration.
There is no Ombudsman for many essential services and there is a dearth of law text books or advice on Jersey law without consulting a Jersey lawyer at grossly inflated prices.
The Waterfront is a disastrous development which will remain uncompleted and sterile due to lack of further investment. Large parts of St Helier remain uncared for and are in decline.
There is an island north-south divide with the wealthy barricaded behind their fortress style gated homes in the northern parishes whilst the prols are forced to live in overcrowded town tenements alongside every anti-social and industrial bad neighbours that are not acceptable in the "green countryside."
The tourism industry has been encouraged into decline with key landmark hotels rebuilt as "luxury" homes - many for investment by outsiders.
Even the "Honorary System" is falling into decline with recruitment ever more difficult and so many essential services calling upon charity and scarce volunteers.
Long term care for the elderly and disabled is facing a financial and staffing crisis.... and all this is the wonderful benefit of having an economy which relies upon creaming off a percentage from the labours of manufacturing and other millions of workers in far away and out of sight places for which we do not give a damn....
Nick you are very generous to have allowed anonymous to post so many comments, not that I could be bothered to read more than one of them. With few exceptions, people who aren't brave enough to give us their real names can't expect their arguments to be taken too seriously, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the right has increased its majority when it comes to social legislation aimed against the poorest because, as I point out below, some of those supposedly less right-wing politicians who lost their seats were voting with the government anyway. The government majority is about the same as before - overwhelming!
Re James Baker: I did see him door-knocking once with a young guy in Cleveland Road. Even from a distance I recognised him by his square jaw! However I don't recall receiving any literature from him, nor from MOK Burger. I received stuff from Shaw, Martin (twice), Le Claire and Pitman.
Unlike you, I don't see Le Claire's defeat as anything to grumble about. When push came to shove he too often sided with the government. Where was his opposition to the Housing and Work laws with its new Big Brother Register and the merging of A-H and A-J housing? He voted 'pour' twice and the laws were passed by 46 to 2 and 47 to 1. Same with the changes to Income Support to clamp down on the jobless- only 5 votes against- he voted 'pour'. Long-term residential care funding- very controversial with the public but he voted 'pour' and it passed by 48-0 vote. Review of survivors' benefits (review means future cuts)- he voted 'pour' (32-4). He had 12 years to make a positive difference. 12 years too long in my opinion.
Re Bob Hill: I mainly remember him as the crusty old thing who used to trip over his tongue to represent the views of the nightclub proprietors in their battle against town residents in the mid-90's when licensing hours were liberalised (or should I say town resident, singular, as I was consistently the ONLY St Helier resident to fight the changes at the Licensing Assemblies). That and using his knowledge of the loopholes in the Housing Laws to help his own children. Good riddance to him too!
Jerry,
ReplyDeleteI take it you too write under a nom de plume since you received election literature for District No.1 St. Helier yet are not a registered voter.
I listened again to James Baker's speech and answers at the Hustings. It was non committal and diffident. I predict three years of pressing the “Pour” button when requested and little else. His election is a triumph of organisation and business networks.
I disagree with you entirely in respect of Bob Hill. He is a great loss to the cause of transparent and accountable government. He was prepared to take up the injustices experienced by Graham Power only to be met with lies, deception and secrecy, all hallmarks of the “The Jersey Way”. Likewise with Human Rights issues. Such things do not go down well in Country Parishes where wealth insulates residents from the vagaries of the system.
Riviera is a disastrous development, which will continue the unfinished and sterile due to lack of further investment.
ReplyDeleteHelier is still uncared decline.There large part of their rich barricaded fortress style, and prols gated home in northern parish of the island behind a north-south divide, forced to live in overcrowded urban tenements along each a bad anti-social and industrial neighbors is unacceptable "green countryside."
Jersey hotels