Jersey's Elections (4)--- The Party's Over

The party’s over and it’s now time to call it a day for 7 States Members in what was called Jersey’s first General Election but in name only, because until there is only one category of States Member elected in equal sized constituencies there will never be a General Election in Jersey.

The Referendum result was as expected although possibly the size of the victory wasn't. As most of the elected members have expressed their support for reform it will be difficult to see how any reform can be implemented unless there is only one category of States Member elected in equal sized constituencies.

The closeness in the result of the only Connetable’s election (6 votes) is the very reason why Connetable’s are overwhelmingly in support for their right to retain their automatic right to a seat in the States. By chance I spoke to two St Mary voters yesterday and asked why they were wearing “Vote Yes” badges and Deputy Le Bailly rosettes. They said they were opposing their Connetable because she was spending too much time on States work. Their response was surely a contradiction because one of the reasons given for paying States Members was because it was recognized that States work was a full time job. 

One of the reasons given for Connetable Jackson’s demise at the previous election was because of his time spent on States work. It would seem that “Yes” voters want their cake and eat it.

Whilst there were many personal victories and congratulation to all the victors, I hope they will press for a review of yesterday’s election because the real victor was apathy and endorsed the “Apathy Ahoy” title I gave to my first Jersey Election’s blog.

The actual % turn out is not available at present but I doubt if the overall turnout was over 45 % with some turn outs being under 30%.

Why did so many people decide not to vote? Was it because they are so disenchanted with the quality of the candidates, the obstacles placed in front of them such as voter registration, queueing to vote in the open as experienced by voters in Trinity yesterday, or the confusion caused by an electoral system which has three categories of States Members, 12 of whom are being paid to be part time members of the States and 17 elected unopposed.

Yesterday was another bad day for the ladies with two new faces but one out, and for candidates with an independent or questioning approach. In my first blog I drew attention to 3 candidates who were deserving support for their ability and seeking an Island mandate to enhance their chances of ministerial positions. I am pleased that 2 of the 3 namely Andrew Green and Zoe Cameron were successful but am really disappointed that the third candidate, John Young did not receive the support he deserved.

Three years ago former Planning Chief Officer John Young was elected for the first time. He chaired a Scrutiny Panel, regularly lodged questions and lodged twice as many propositions than the 12 Connetables put together. He also made some valuable contributions during States debates.  Possibly one of the reasons for his demise was his honesty by openly supporting the No Vote. He may have lost the election but his integrity remains intact. 

The same can be said of Sarah Ferguson who has been a formidable Scrutiny Chairman whose panels did keep a close eye on public spending and raised issues such as the grant to the bogus film company and the budget shambles. She could be likened to the Chief Minister of Scrutiny and her defeat will be another loss to the Island.

During last Friday’s "Election Call" on Radio Jersey I was asked whether there could be any upsets. I thought that Ministers Anne Pryke at Health and Rob Duhamel at Planning could be vulnerable. Ann just scrapped in by beating Hugh Raymond by 16 votes but Rob just lost out by 26 votes to Peter McLinton, one of the 4 successful media candidates.

We must also say goodbye to "Crusty" Gerard Baudans who used to sit next to me in the States and also to Nick Le Cornu who because of his “tweet” about a colleague was going to find re-election difficult.

One of the disappointing results was not that someone lost but was actually elected, that person is the former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis. He was the man behind the controversial and unlawful suspension of the former police Chief Graham Power. Andrew Lewis is back but his role in the States will need to be closely scrutinised. He must surely be called as a witness before the Committee of Inquiry so that it can be established which of the two statements he gave to the States and to the Wiltshire Police is truthful.

Given that Senator Gorst topped the poll it will be seen as an endorsement of his position as Chief Minister. Therefore whilst it would be good if his position for Chief Minister was challenged, it will be difficult for any one to defeat him. He has lost the Ministers of Home Affairs, Planning, Education and Social Security, therefore he should be looking to a reshuffle of existing Ministers like Bailhache, Ozouf and Maclean who have an Island mandate, and give Ministerial posts to Farnham, Routier, Cameron and Green. 

It would be an insult to the likes of John Young and Sean Power who have lost their seats, if Deputies, some of whom were elected unopposed, are appointed to Ministerial positions.

In conclusion thanks must be given to the States Greffier Michael de la Haye and his staff for the publication of the Election Manifesto booklet and for the Vote. je website along with the video recordings of the Hustings. 

Readers who wish to see read the results from yesterday’s election will be able to do so by clicking on to the Vote.Je website HERE.

Jersey's Elections (3) The "Yes Vote" ---The Myth Exposed.

The Yes Campaign has posted the reasons for voting yes.

Below is my response

Efficiency

The loss of the Constables will weaken opposition to the current proposals for a centralised property tax. This proposal will cost Islanders more than the current rates system, and be set by the Treasury Minister, not Parishioners.

A yes or no vote will make no difference to what is only a proposal and thankfully is most unlikely to get past the starting post.

Parish Rates have remained steady for 10 years. Without an effective Parish Administration bureaucracy will increase, stifling business in Jersey, and increasing the burden on the individual Ratepayer.

A red herring. Parish Administration is good and the Connetables are to be complemented but there is no justification to claim that by voting No will lead to an increase in bureaucracy.  Parish Rates is down to the effective Parish administration and from close scrutiny by parishioners who have a direct say in parish expenditure at the annual rates meetings

If the Constables are removed from the States, they will either have to be paid by their Parishes or not at all. This creates an imbalance and without pay the only people who will stand will be those with the time and money to afford it. It also risks destabilising the whole honorary system should one office holder receive remuneration and the others not.

Voting No does remove the right of Connetables sitting in the States only their automatic right. It will be for the electorate to decide whether they think their Connetable is worthy of a States seat.

The Connetable is head of the HONORARY parish system where many parishioners give freely of their time. Whilst some already receive an allowance from their Parish if they feel they need to be paid for carrying out their duties then it will be for the Parishioners to decide.

Ask yourself how effective the administration of your Parish is compared with the States of Jersey, and would you want to remove this efficiency from your Government and Assembly?

The referendum is not about parish efficiency

Community

Through their political role, the Constables can interact with Parishioners and work as part of a support network. The loss of the Constables in the States will undoubtedly lead to a significant weakening of the Parish system – as has been the case in Guernsey for many years.

Sadly Parish Assemblies are poorly attended so there is very little interaction. Apart from St Mary’s the other 11 Connetables have not had to contest an election yet not one of them has organised a parish meeting to discuss the Referendum. Where is the interaction?

Constables have been identified as the future for ‘e-Government’ interaction as well as care and the community. This cannot happen if they are not in the States Assembly.

Where is the evidence? Most of the Connetables are yet to master the art of uploading their manifestos on to the Vote.je website.

Through the Parish Assembly, and being available at the Parish Hall, the Constable is uniquely placed to be able to understand the concerns of their parishioners. These concerns are taken to the States Assembly directly, through the political role of the Constable. This cannot be replaced.

Again where is the evidence to support this claim? There is however ample evidence to show how few questions, propositions and amendments have been lodged by the Connetables. What does not exist does not need to be replaced.

Accountability

The Constables are continually accountable to the Parishioners through the Parish Assembly as well as the ballot box. No other type of States Member is. Parishioners, by the ancient law of Requête can force a Parish Assembly to be called.

The outcome of the Referendum will not change the present arrangement. Surely all elected members are accountable at the ballot box.

Most Deputies do not represent the Parishes in the States. Where is the evidence?
They are elected in their own districts, on the basis of their political views. Each Parish, as a corporate body, is represented in the States by its Constable similar to the way each Department is represented by its Minister.

I find the above to be an odd claim. As a former Deputy I considered my self to be a representative of my Parishioners in both Parish and Island affairs. I would have thought that principle applied to my Connetable as well.

The removal of the Constables has the potential to de-stabilise Jersey’s Government. The Finance Industry requires confidence in government. Radical changes in the structure of government could damage confidence at a time of economic uncertainty.

I can only repeat that the Referendum is to seek the public’s views as to whether the Connetables should have an automatic right to a seat. Removing the potential of the Connetable’s block vote might concentrate the minds of the Council of Ministers but that might be one of the positives from a No vote.

There is a suggestion that Constables have a “block vote”. While they may vote the same way, they do so as individuals bringing Parish concerns to the assembly. Statistics show that Senators vote the same way as Constables do, but this goes unremarked. It is worth noting that a Party System would be one in which Party members had to vote the same way and take the agreed Party line. That would be a real “block vote”.

The above claim is not supported by the facts.

Reform

Constables have proven they are reforming States Members. They led the way towards a single election day, a four year term and spring elections. They also removed their own policing powers. Without them reform becomes more difficult to achieve.

Quite an audacious claims where is the evidence to substantiate them? The policing powers were removed thanks to continual pressure from back benches.  It is worth noting that unlike the Deputies and Senators Connetables are not subject to the States of Jersey Law nor do they take the same oath.

The retention of the Constables IS compliant with the Venice Commission, which makes allowances for different jurisdictions: “The geographical criterion and administrative, or possibly even historical, boundaries may be taken into consideration.” Our Parish boundaries are both administrative and historical and thus meet these requirements.

The Venice Commission can be interpreted as above but is hardly relevant to the Referendum. I am pretty confident that many Connetables would be elected if they stood shoulder to shoulder with other candidates and this would enhance their status.  However voting yes will only perpetuate a system that is broken and will remain so for many years to come.