This is the second time I've heard the last kind of comment. Harcourt's Pat Doherty said that some members of the States were "politicising" matters, which presumably means much the same. It is a slur which may be true, after all it is election year, but which equally could be false.
If every time someone criticises someone on the basis of argument or fact, they are accused of making political capital, then debates would be stifled.
The kind of argument involved is called "ad hominem" and it involves attacking - not the merits of your opponent's position - but their motivation. It is known logical fallacy, but one beloved of politicians because it is a cheap and easy way of getting out of trouble. I would expect a chief minister to be above such matters, but evidently he is not.
Let us give Mr Walker the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was not in possession of the facts about Harcourt (and trusted them at face value on reassurances about Las Vegas).
What about the other matters he brushed aside: the debts carried by the company, and its financial robustness?
Now the motion of censure which is being brought by Geoff Southern notes that
http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/propositions/49270-12820-1662008.htm
The essential material that was missing from the debate consists of 2 reports, as follows –
The PricewaterhouseCoopers Report (PwC) "Harcourt Developments Limited Financial Capacity Assessment: Draft report for discussion", presented to WEB September 2007. This document was released to members after the debate had concluded.
Report of the Economic Adviser to the Council of Ministers on the Economic impact of the proposals for the development of the Waterfront, February 2006
The PwC Report
Members learned on 10th June that the Chief Minister was unaware of the contents of the PwC report before the debate –
"This (the PwC report) was a confidential report and I do not believe that the Chief Minister would have been made aware of the content …… I do not believe he was aware of the content of the report until after the conclusion of the debate last week"
Following the release of this report after the debate had concluded, members were able to read the crucial assessment in Section 2.2 of the ratio of company turnover (A) to peak annual construction cost (B) as a means to test whether a particular development is likely to overstretch a partner. A ratio (A/B) of 5:1 is suggested as suitable. The table below this statement shows a figure of only 1.41:1, and the final test comment is Fail.
In Appendix D, the Evaluation Proforma, which was included in the report accompanying P.60/2008, gearing is not described as "low". In the section entitled 'Review of the Financial Position', whilst it is accepted that gearing levels are in line with the range generally observed for property development companies, the gearing levels are described as "substantial" and "significant".
Also, in the Review of Solvency, PwC point out the predominantly short-term nature of the Group's debt, with only €59 million (14.6%) out of €405 million being repayable in more than one year. Furthermore, in the Review of financial performance, PwC note also the increasing debt position of the company and the way in which gross profits are swallowed up by debt repayments
And yet as we can see from Frank Walker's own words (see below)
"I would refer the House to something I referred to in my speech yesterday, the PricewaterhouseCoopers financial capacity audit which confirmed that Harcourt are low geared, very well placed particularly since the subprime crisis, very well placed because of the capital available to them and their low gearing to undertake this development"
Now - either he did know the results of the PWC report, in which case he evidently was not presenting it fairly and honestly - or he did not know the results of the reports, in which case he should not have given a personal confirmation, but said instead "I have been advised that the PWC reports..." and made it clear that he had not read it.
Either way, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that he did knowingly mislead the house either by presenting a false précis of the report, or by presenting himself as privy to the information in that report when in fact that was not the case, and he should have clarified his ignorance (which was nowhere in evidence in his statement to the House).
I don't see that he has a right to be angry about that, and if I were asking many questions which he said must now be asked, mine would be to ask about
the Chief Minister for not providing full and accurate information to the Assembly in relation to the financial and economic considerations during the debate on the Esplanade Quarter Masterplan and, in the absence of such information, for misleading the Assembly about the financial analysis of the proposed developer
which happens to be the proposition for the motion of censure, and given the evidence from the Hansard transcripts, I do not see that this is making "political capital" but asking a reasonable question.
So no more "making political capital" jibes please, Senator Walker!
Ad hominem attacks are often used in a debate or discussion where the speaker wishes to avoid the substance of the discussion and instead resorts to smearing the character of their opponent.
It is considered a logical fallacy and is one of the modes of spreading propaganda.
Deputy Gerard Baudains
Another issue the Chief Minister raised yesterday, Sir, was the fact that apparently we had had various checks done on the preferred developer for financial robustness and gearing and that sort of thing and I have to ask, I hope in his summing up the Minister will address whether this was done before or after the subprime crisis, Sir? I would like to ask him why, for instance, we have not been told that the company apparently 18 months ago owed its bankers 345 million euros? ..Why were Members not told that last month the firm that we are about to deal with was actioned in Las Vegas in a billion dollar lawsuit, which may be highly relevant to our proposition, Sir, because the lawsuit alleges breach of contract, a failure to… [Interruption] I thought I was speaking.
Senator F.H. Walker:
The Deputy is misleading the States. There has been and there is no lawsuit in Las Vegas.
Senator F.H. Walker:
Can I emphasise… first of all let me say: "Here we go again", any excuse to get a reference back and to delay taking a decision. But the Deputy did mislead the House in his earlier speeches. There is no legal dispute in Las Vegas. Has there been an issue between Harcourt and one of their proposed partners in Las Vegas? Yes. Has there been a legal suit on the back of it? No. Has the partner or the former partner invested any money in the scheme? No. It is purely a Harcourt financial deal and to suggest that there is a legal suit is quite, quite misleading. In terms of due diligence, the ruler has been run over Harcourt so thoroughly on so many occasions and they have come up A1 in every instance. I would refer the House to something I referred to in my speech yesterday, the PricewaterhouseCoopers financial capacity audit which confirmed that Harcourt are low geared, very well placed particularly since the subprime crisis, very well placed because of the capital available to them and their low gearing to undertake this development
Posts
1 comment:
It is always interesting to hear the accusation of 'politicisation' when coming from the mouth of a politician.
I think the word politicise has two meanings and by playing on the subtle differences between them, politicians attempt to deflect criticism.
The first meaning is to bring a subject into the realm of politics (and thus the responsiblity of politicians) which was previously considered to be either a purely natural or technical problem.
For example, famine was generally considered to be a natural event until Amartya Sen's groundbreaking work Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation (1981), "demonstrated that famine occurs not only from a lack of food, but from inequalities built into mechanisms for distributing food". [Wiki]
From which came the famous quotation: "No substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press."
Poverty has been politicised, as has AIDS, and many other diseases whose spread is assisted by conditions caused by political decisions or the absence of them.
So, in the first sense of the word, there might be disagreement about whether the subject really falls within the ambit of politics but there is rarely the accusation that someone is trying to gain a political advantage by making it so.
The second sense of the word implies that another politician is trying to gain political advantage (normally party political advantage) by concentrating on some specific details to the exclusion of the general facts.
There is no suggestion that the subject is not political to begin with - ie it is already within the realm of politics - but that your opponent is moving the focus of the debate away from the facts to an analysis of why someone is arguing in a certain way. This then resembles an ad hominem attack, although it is not truly one.
When Frank Walker accuses his critics of politicising the waterfront issue, he obviously doesn't mean it in the first sense of the word, since the waterfront is irrefutably already a political issue, ie it is a decision being made by politicians.
So he must mean it in the second sense, but that doesn't really make sense either, because his critics don't really have much to gain - he's standing down in November and he's not a member of a party that would be damaged by bringing him down, as could happen in Westminster.
What I think he really means is 'personalise', which is where the ad hominem criticism comes in: you defeat your opponent by attacking his character not his arguments.
By subtly conflating these three meanings, FW, probably unconsciously, is trying to avoid the real accusation, which is not to do with his character, or his politics, or the political nature of the decision, it is purely related to his performance.
What people are saying is, "You didn't perform your job properly, and yet you tell us you are an elder stateman and a highly competent businessman, but in this instance you have shown yourself to be negligent and irresponsible, possibly wilfully. Even worse, you may have knowingly deceived us."
It is not a sufficient defence to turn around and say, "How dare you suggest I would ever do anything like that. You are insulting my good character."
It is the facts that accuse him, not his critics.
As for the quality of his character, people will form their own opinion about that once they get a clear picture of what he knew and why he acted the way he did.
Post a Comment