For today I thought it would be useful to publish a letter from Ian Gorst to the JEP on the subject of retaining the Senators. One of the significant arguments he makes is that the general public are in favour of retaining the Senators, as shown by the MORI poll. Is that still the case today?
If it is, we will never find out, as Russell Labey had ruled out a referendum on the subject of reform. A yes / no question on the Senators, unlike the Constables (a resounding "Yes") has never been asked. Instead Deputy Labey argued that it is up to the States to decide, not the electorate, which quite frankly I find patronising - it smacks of "We know best".
Deputy Labey has also been loath to move to an all Island vote - as Guernsey has done - until recently stating it would be impossible. Guernsey cleverly employed technology to help count votes, and showed its sister Island, as so often it has done, that it was possible.
So the argument shifted to being that it might be possible with the smaller number of Deputies in Guernsey, but it would never work here. It's what the philosopher-mathematician Imre Lakatos called "monster barring", making exceptions to sustain your case after it has been falsified. Scientific theories which do that are rightly consigned to the scrap heap of history, but unfortunately politicians are immune from factual realities.
Letter from Senator Ian Gorst to the JEP: 19 April 2021
I AM pleased that my proposal to retain the Senators has generated a greater level of political engagement — one of the key objectives of the Privileges and Procedures Committee in proposing electoral reform. Islanders are usually not scared of communicating their views to me, and I appreciate the positive responses I have received from many Islanders over the past ten days.
Inevitably, my proposals are not agreeable to everyone and I have been subject to the predictable charge of having lodged a ‘wrecking’ amendment. I have even been accused of being worried about potentially having to contest a Deputorial election. This, despite my having previously served two terms as a Deputy. My preference is for this debate to focus on the issue at hand, and not on personalities or individual at- tacks. I ask simply — what is the case for the removal of the Senators?
It is argued that having three types of States Member is too complicated for voters to understand, despite us having had these arrangements in place since 1948. It is said that the Senatorial ballot paper is too long, and that hustings meetings are unmanageable, even though Guernsey has just elected 38 Deputies in an election which was efficiently managed and where turnout was up compared to their previous election and substantially higher than in our most recent election.
We’re also told that the single election day has devalued the office of Senator, ‘and that too many first-time candidates are standing for Senator. These arguments focus on perceived points of process, and none of them make a reasoned case against the office of Senator itself.
The case for retaining the Senators is much clearer. The election of Senators is the fairest and most equal way of electing Members of the States - the office is simply unchallengeable in that respect. The Senators hold the most substantial democratic mandate of any political office in Jersey. They give every voter a greater say over the make-up of the States Assembly, and of the government and Scrutiny, than they would otherwise have.
If we lose the Senators, we will all have the number of votes that we can cast reduced. This weakens the public’s influence over our democratic structures, and it diminishes democracy.
The current proposals for electoral reform are aimed at boosting public engagement, increasing turnout and achieving greater equity. If these are our objectives, then they all point to keeping the Senators.
Before the first single election day in 2011, turnout at Senatorial elections was usually higher than at those for Deputies. Turnout since has, understandably, been broadly equal. lmportantly, though, who can recall the last uncontested election for Senator?
In 2006, an IPSOS MORI poll found that 78% thought that either all or some States Members should be elected on an Island wide wide basis. The Electoral Commission report in 2013 stated ‘we accept that at present the public strongly supports the concept of the Islandwide mandate’.
In the 2013 referendum, the only option for retaining Senators was the status quo. Islanders have never been presented with an option that includes both electoral reform and keeping the Senators. I cannot accept, therefore, that people in Jersey have consented to the removal of the Senators, and I believe that a majority of the public today still favour their retention.
I AM pleased that my proposal to retain the Senators has generated a greater level of political engagement — one of the key objectives of the Privileges and Procedures Committee in proposing electoral reform. Islanders are usually not scared of communicating their views to me, and I appreciate the positive responses I have received from many Islanders over the past ten days.
Inevitably, my proposals are not agreeable to everyone and I have been subject to the predictable charge of having lodged a ‘wrecking’ amendment. I have even been accused of being worried about potentially having to contest a Deputorial election. This, despite my having previously served two terms as a Deputy. My preference is for this debate to focus on the issue at hand, and not on personalities or individual at- tacks. I ask simply — what is the case for the removal of the Senators?
It is argued that having three types of States Member is too complicated for voters to understand, despite us having had these arrangements in place since 1948. It is said that the Senatorial ballot paper is too long, and that hustings meetings are unmanageable, even though Guernsey has just elected 38 Deputies in an election which was efficiently managed and where turnout was up compared to their previous election and substantially higher than in our most recent election.
We’re also told that the single election day has devalued the office of Senator, ‘and that too many first-time candidates are standing for Senator. These arguments focus on perceived points of process, and none of them make a reasoned case against the office of Senator itself.
The case for retaining the Senators is much clearer. The election of Senators is the fairest and most equal way of electing Members of the States - the office is simply unchallengeable in that respect. The Senators hold the most substantial democratic mandate of any political office in Jersey. They give every voter a greater say over the make-up of the States Assembly, and of the government and Scrutiny, than they would otherwise have.
If we lose the Senators, we will all have the number of votes that we can cast reduced. This weakens the public’s influence over our democratic structures, and it diminishes democracy.
The current proposals for electoral reform are aimed at boosting public engagement, increasing turnout and achieving greater equity. If these are our objectives, then they all point to keeping the Senators.
Before the first single election day in 2011, turnout at Senatorial elections was usually higher than at those for Deputies. Turnout since has, understandably, been broadly equal. lmportantly, though, who can recall the last uncontested election for Senator?
In 2006, an IPSOS MORI poll found that 78% thought that either all or some States Members should be elected on an Island wide wide basis. The Electoral Commission report in 2013 stated ‘we accept that at present the public strongly supports the concept of the Islandwide mandate’.
In the 2013 referendum, the only option for retaining Senators was the status quo. Islanders have never been presented with an option that includes both electoral reform and keeping the Senators. I cannot accept, therefore, that people in Jersey have consented to the removal of the Senators, and I believe that a majority of the public today still favour their retention.
.jpg)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment