The Shape of Things to Come

Geoff Southern is bringing a proposition to nullify the Ministerial Decision by Susie Pinel which to extended the qualifying period for unfair dismissal complaints from 6 months to one year.

By the time this blog goes out, he will almost certainly have lost the vote, but the matter is important to consider because of what else it tells us about how Ministerial government works, and how it is shaped more by perception that fact.

Whatever one may think of the merits of a shorter period, and I am undecided on that myself, it is noteworthy that he quotes the Employment Forum as one of his arguments:

“The Forum has found no evidence that a longer qualifying period would have a positive impact on employment and job opportunities. The Forum considered whether the consultation revealed any other reasons that might support a longer qualifying period. The Forum has concluded that the potentially detrimental impact of a longer qualifying period outweighs the potentially positive factors to such an extent that the Forum cannot recommend a longer qualifying period. The Forum recommends by way of a majority decision that the qualifying period for protection against unfair dismissal should remain at 26 weeks.”

He asks the very pertinent question –

“The body tasked with the duty to advise the minister and the States on employment issues has clearly decided against the decision of the current Minister. One has to ask what has changed so significantly over the past 18 months to justify the Minister’s contrary decision.”

In other words, why bother with an employment forum if you are simply going to toss their reports into the waste paper basket?

In her comments, Susie Pinel says that:

“Employers and their representatives had expressed clear concerns that Jersey’s 26 week qualifying period was a significant factor in preventing or discouraging them from taking on more staff. While it is not possible to quantify the significance of the qualifying period in recruitment decisions, this perception nevertheless exists. Lifting this restriction is expected to boost employers’ confidence.”

That’s fine as far as it goes – provided that some kind of mechanisms are in place to quantify if changing the period will boost recruitment, and long term recruitment, rather than simply taking on staff on a temporary basis for under a year.

Retail outlets probably have a fairly consistent pattern of sales, but service companies – electricians, plumbers, carpenters, builders, etc may well have fluctuating demands on employment, and while this may enable them to take on more staff for a short term, they may well find that it is advantageous when planning short term projects to take on staff, and let them go in slack periods.

Of course, any work for someone unemployed has to be good, but the patterns of recruitment and dismissals should be carefully monitored to see exactly what are the unintended consequences of this change. There seems to be no provision for this.

The Minister’s reply stated that:

“While the Forum found no direct evidence that a longer qualifying period would make a difference to job opportunities, it also found no direct evidence that it would not make a difference, or that 26 weeks is the correct qualifying period.”

So the change is being made on the basis of employers’ perceptions, and comparison with other jurisdictions, and the Minister’s point is a valid one. But it highlights the problem in the lack of data. How do we know that the Minister’s change will make a difference, and one for the better? The same lack of evidence that allowed her to circumvent the forum would surely also apply.

And why having quoted with approval the Chief Minister that “In order to remain aligned to our competitors I will propose pilot exemptions to the Employment Law for small business starting with an extension to the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims.” – she then goes ahead with a blanket change, not one helpful to small businesses?

It is noteworthy that other jurisdictions have no trouble with this kind of distinction. For instance, the Fair Work Act in Australia defines the minimum period to be 6 months at the time of the dismissal, unless the employer is a small business employer, in which case a 12 month qualifying period applies. If the argument is that 12 months applies in other jurisdictions, which is cited with approval, should we adopt a pick-n-mix attitude, or look at other aspects of their legislation?

But probably the most significant part of the reply by the Minister is encapsulated in the following paragraph:

“The report accompanying the Proposition states that to bring this: “by order rather than by regulation is a deliberate attempt by the Minister to avoid debate”. The change was made by Order because the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003, as adopted by the Assembly in 2003, gives the Minister the power to prescribe a different qualifying period by Order. This structure is how we ensure that legislative matters are dealt with quickly and efficiently, with 140 Ministerial Orders made in 2014.”

The way in which legislation is now framed is increasingly designed so that changes can be made by Ministerial decision, without recourse to the States Assembly. A framework is put in place, and orders can be taken by Ministerial decision to widen the scope of the legislation and put flesh on the bare bones.

It is true that it does ensure that legislative matters can be dealt with quickly and efficiently, but it also provides an avenue for by-passing the democratic accountability of bringing the matter to the States. Of course a States member can bring a motion to rescind a decision, but it is much harder to roll back a decision made than for a Minister to have to win the Assembly over with a proposition.

When it was just a small track, this was perhaps not so important, but now Ministerial decisions have become more of a large highway. They are quick, efficient – and lack accountability.

Southern Spin and Chamber Conceits

Southern Spin

Geoff Southern, on the JDA website noted that

"Whilst wages are frozen, GST costs for the average family will go up by over £900" . (1)

I'm not exactly sure how this was calculated.

By my reckoning,

If you spent £46,000 that was subject to GST in a year
The net figure would be £46,000/1.03 = £44,660
The GST at 3% on that would be £44,660 * 3% = £1,340
(as a check, note that £1,340+£44,660 = £46,000)
5% GST on £44,660 would be £2,233
The difference between £2,233 and £1,340 would be £893.

In other words, to get GST to go up by over £900, you must be earning (and spending on GST - which excludes medical bills and dentists bills and other items like the TV licence) - over £46,000!

So according to Deputy Southern, the average family income is just over £46,000. Somehow, I think he's got his figures a teeny bit wrong. Evidently mathematics was not his strong point as a teacher.

I think he means go up to £900 not go up by £900, which means a spend on GST related goods and services of £18,000. That is closer to low income wages, and means that on £18,000 (before GST is added) the 3% currently on that is £540, making an increase of £360 per annum.

Now I'm not saying that is not substantial to a family on a small income of around £18,000-£20,000 - it could mean, on a stretched budget, that people leave off dental check-ups, or try to keep from going to the doctor when perhaps they should (and end up off work taking sickness for a longer period).

If rents go up as well, and rents never seem to feel the recessionary pinch, then the family budget could be stretched even more, and may need more income support, thereby drawing more money from the State, and promoting a dependency culture.

But it does mean that Geoff Southern is indulging in a certain amount of spin, and I don't think that kind of argument is any good; it is easily demolished, and in doing so, the case for exemptions may also suffer by association with a discredited approach. If the JDA wants to provide arguments for exemptions, they need better ones that that. Senator Ferguson has already indicated that she thinks Geoff Southern's figures are suspect - let's hope he doesn't repeat the argument in the States.

Chamber Conceits

I also heard a spokesman for the Chamber of Commerce (on BBC Radio Jersey this morning) trotting out the argument that exemptions would make administration for his members much more difficult. This conjures up the image of a Victorian shopkeeper, whose handwritten ledgers are full of calligraphic beauty, and who has to go through endless painstaking checks on each item sold. It is an absolute nonsense.

What is more - he persisted in saying "most members" whereas the recent survey which included an opinion on the GST rise had only a response rate of approximately 17% of the membership, and it is very conceited to assume that this was somehow representative of the missing respondents. The survey, in fact, only asked "Do agree or disagree with the Budget proposal to increase GST to 5%?" and no question arose about exemptions. How does he know, then, what the bulk of the members think? And how representative is the Chamber of Commerce of all Island retailers who would be involved in any changes?

It is true that - with exemptions - there would be an initial cost of adjusting rates on various items, and adjusting till systems, but we do live in the age of the computer, and that is one area where computer programs speed up this kind of process. It is also true that there will be an additional burden to compliance (as I noted in an earlier post), but we are not adopting complex systems like the UK, where there is GST at 0%, 5% and 17 /1/2%, and a wider range of items at 0%. All the local proposition relates to is food (which can follow the UK list, which should therefore be easier for large retailers) and domestic fuel.

Regarding till receipts, UK systems are not necessarily more complicated:

Receipts to general public don't have to show VAT at all - however; if you inform M&S you need a VAT receipt and provide them with your VAT number they are obliged to provide you with a proper VAT receipt - usually retailers invoices would show sufficient info to avoid people doing this and causing large queues (2)

Waitrose (as an example) clearly indicate on each receipt the breakdown of VAT and Zero Rated goods and give a running total. The only way to identify VAT rated items on an M&S standard food till receipt is by an * against the item. And yes, that is clear enough too. (2)

All that is needed, is the VAT registration number, and some means of flagging items, and the UK EPOS systems have had plenty of time to do this, so it is not as if Jersey has to re-invent the wheel. Indeed the UK tax department already has plenty of guidelines which we just need to adopt - far easier for the States than producing masses of local pen-pushing:

A good system will print the VAT code, or similarly meaningful indicator, on the till receipt (3)

Most modern accountancy software allows stock, for example, to be clustered by category, and for a global change in VAT rates to be applied to selected items all at once. Perhaps the very smallest shop keeper may not have a computerised till system, but let's not forget there is a turnover limit before firms have to register for GST, and the smallest shop keeper would certainly not be registered.

And remember, GST at 5% would be the "tipping point" - Senator Ozouf has made it clear that if it goes above 5% at any time in the future, there will probably have to be exemptions, and associated costs. Has the Chamber of Commerce considered that?

Links
(1) http://jdajersey.co.uk/Geoff%20Southern.htm
(2) http://www.taxationweb.co.uk/forum/m-s-till-receipts-i-m-confused-t32011.html
(3) http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageLibrary_ShowContent&id=HMCE_CL_001540&propertyType=document

Health matters, A&E, GP Costs and Income Support

I see that Gerard Baudains is coming into the JDA fold, or at any rate has his own page on their website.

The latest wheeze is by Deputy Gorst of St Clement - the Social Security minister - who proposed raiding our pension fund to cover inefficiencies and poor management in another department. I thought only Robert Maxwell did things like that. (1)

Now this relates to the

DRAFT HEALTH INSURANCE FUND (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (JERSEY) LAW 201-

and at first sight, it seems to be about taking money from social security to pay for health by raiding the social security pension fund.

But matters are not as simple as that. As I understand it, from reading the proposition, and looking at what has been suggested in detail, the pension fund is being kept well away from any transfer of funds.

There are two components to social security - the pension scheme and the health / medical side, which were accounted for separately, with a fixed percentage of the social security money going into the health / medical side. On the health side, the proposition notes that:

The Health Insurance Fund (the "Fund") was established when the Health Insurance (Jersey) Law 1967 (the "Law") came into force on 4th December 1967. The Fund receives a set percentage allocation of all social security contributions collected under the Social Security Law, which is currently 2% (made up of a 0.8% contribution from employees and a 1.2% contribution from employers) of the 12.5% total contributions collected. The Law specifies that the Fund is to use the contributions received to meet primary health care costs, which are currently limited to medical and pharmaceutical benefits. The level of medical benefit is set by the States by Regulation and was increased this May to assist in establishing General Practitioner governance arrangements. Currently the Fund subsidises patients to the tune of £19 for each G.P. visit and also covers the cost of prescriptions dispensed by Community Pharmacists. (2)

The proposition (and debate) makes it quite clear that the Health Fund and the Pension Fund are quite different entities, with quite separate sets of accounts.

The proposition would leave the pension side untouched, but as the health / medical side had actually been running at a surplus for a number of years, and as it was providing healthcare related funding, the decision had been made to use some of that surplus - and not in any way the pension scheme - to take over the health and social services, as it all came under the health care umbrella.

To some extent, the health care part of the fund has changed it scope over the years from when it was set up in 1967:

Since 1967, the scope of primary care has expanded greatly and many different healthcare professions are now involved in first-line medical and healthcare treatment and care. Typically, primary care is provided in a community setting, such as a G.P. surgery or a health centre. In Jersey, some primary care services are delivered from the General Hospital. (2)

So it is not irrational, or in any way a Robert Maxwell style pension raid, to move some of the Health Care Fund monies - and those alone - over to the Hospital budget.

But what should be looked at in more detail is perhaps the use of A&E rather than doctor's surgeries, or out of hours call-outs (which are incredibly expensive to young families). There are currently proposals coming in to limit that, or to force people to pay for the services if they are the kind of services that could be obtained from a GP. What is not being considered is why people use the casualty department service in that way - it is assumed they are spongers, trying to save money by working the system.

In the UK, the same kind of problem occurs, surprisingly, and one study from Barnsley notes that:

Participants provided the following comments to explain why some people used A&E for minor illnesses.
. Because its quicker (don't have to wait for an appointment with GP)
. Because of lack of knowledge of other facilities and services
. Some people are suicidal and attention seeking
. "You think you'll get better care - they've got all the equipment"
. Its easy
. All they have been educated to do is to use A&E. This is reinforced
through television programmes such as Casualty. The public know about
A&E. It was suggested that there are no dramas about out of hours
services. (3)

The "Doctor Foster" medical site said one key was making sure people knew they could get proper services from their GP, and it would not cost them anything to do so:

Certain messages were key for encouraging people to consider the out-of-hours service: patients could first get assessed on the phone, could easily make an emergency appointment and would always receive the treatment they needed. (4)

There's the rub. In Jersey, while going to the GP is subsidised, the patient also has to pay a share of the cost, and when it is a callout, perhaps to a young child who is unwell, the charges can rise rapidly over a very short time. And recently, when the potential of a swine flu epidemic was thought to be coming, patients were told - wisely enough - not to attend surgeries, and the cost of call outs in these special circumstances would not be for the patient to pay (to ensure compliance). Clearly this is a problem, which does not occur in the UK, where re-education into the use of alternative free facilities is the main problem.

If the Health Insurance Fund is running at a surplus, would it not be better to channel some of that into reducing the costs of going to the GP, especially perhaps when emergency out of hours calls are required? And rather than castigating Deputy Gorst on imaginary issues, would it not be better to ask questions about these very real issues?

Over-cautious parents are choosing to take their children to A&E with minor ailments such as coughs and colds instead of their GP. Under-pressure NHS staff are seeing youngsters with common illnesses which would usually be dealt with by their family doctor.(5)

Do we need some kind of out of hours community health care centre for minor ailments that is cheaper than call outs when they are not needed? The UK has quite a lot of those, and they reduce pressure on GPs. Might it not be a good idea to look at if something like that could be provided if A&E is closing its doors, so that alternatives are available? Even if there is still a charge - the same as that of going to the GP in daytime hours - that would still be a fraction of the cost of a call out.

The fact is that when a surgery closes (after 6 pm), any problems have to be dealt with by call-outs, and these cost a family (especially those trying to balance a budget) money that they can't afford, and I suspect this is one of the reasons why A&E gets people with more minor ailments.

In the 2008 Election, the JEP asked the prospective Senatorial candidates:

Question: Should the States pay more towards the cost of visits to the doctor? (6).

These were their replies. Perhaps we should ask them what has been done to improve matters since October 2008?

Mike Higgins: The cost of going to the doctor is crippling to some members of our society, so much so that they do not go and get the treatment they need and deserve. I believe in everyone receiving the health care they need, not based on what they can afford.

Montfort Tadier: Doctors' fees are prohibitively high for many people. There is currently an issue with those who are on limited means seeking treatment at A&E for this very reason, even though their sicknesses are not necessarily emergencies.

Philip Ozouf: The whole system of primary care needs reform. The Health Insurance Scheme is currently running with an annual surplus of £10 million with more than £60 million in the bank. Some of this fund should be used to subsidise visits to the doctor and also extend non-means-tested preventative care and screening, especially for senior citizens.

Sarah Ferguson: Why are the costs of going to the doctor so high? Perhaps the JCRA should investigate. Certainly those who were on HIE should be helped - but this is one of the areas where I think the forms required to apply for the various components of income support have been somewhat confusing, helped by the fact that it is a new system and the staff are not yet totally familiar with it.

Trevor Pitman: Affordable health care is surely one of the cornerstones of any true and modern democracy.

Alan Breckon: Paying doctors' costs for home or surgery visits is a concern to many people, especially those just above income support thresholds with children, or the elderly. Targeted support would be better than assistance for all. Prescription charges should not have been abolished. Assistance could have been focused on assisting others with medical, optical and dental treatment.

Alan Maclean: Those who can't afford to visit the doctor should have the necessary support to ensure that they can. Otherwise the hospital's A&E department faces an increased burden of non-emergencies, which is a false economy. In some cases, people will put off visits to their doctor, leading to more serious illness and ultimately greater cost to the health care system.

Ian le Marquand: Currently, drug prescriptions are free and £15 towards the cost of GP visits comes from Social Security. Income support is also meant to cover the cost of a reasonable number of visits to the doctor. This is an area in which the States should aim to gradually increase the £15, as the financial position allows. There is also an issue as to how well the new income support system is working. There appear to be cases in which people are having difficulty in obtaining the same level of medical support which they need and used to have.

Jeremy Macon: We should reintroduce HIE. This was an excellent system and currently low-income support only pays for four visits to the doctor. This is ridiculous for those on a low income who have to go to the doctor regularly for check-ups or tests. We were better off under the old system, where those who could not afford care did not have to worry about going to the doctor or calling him out if they had to.

Daniel Wimberley: The principle is clear: no-one should be barred from going to the doctor because they cannot afford it.

Links:
(1) jdajersey.co.uk/Gerard%20Baudains.htm
(2) www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/propositions/28376-41910-1392010.pdf
(3) www.tcp-events.co.uk/wsmc/downloads/breakouts/Tuesday/1200/PCT/K%20Chaplin.pdf
(4) www.drfosterintelligence.co.uk/services/aande.asp
(5) www.theargus.co.uk/news/4424578.Brighton_parents_take_children_to_A_E_with_coughs_and_colds/
(6) www.thisisjersey.com/election/senators/issues/doctors-fees/#ixzz16f10TMbO

Little Figures that Don't Add Up

Lennie Godber: Blokes by me bet on how many bricks are in the cell.
Norman Stanley Fletcher: That's common.
Lennie Godber: I can't think. It drives me mad, listening to their recounts. "341, 342..."
(BBC TV, Porridge, "The Hustler")

There were calls for the Treasury Minister to be sacked last night amid claims that he lied to Islanders about raising the rate of GST. Senator Philip Ozouf came under heavy fire from all sides at last night's protest rally at Fort Regent, organised by the union Unite, and a petition is now circulating to get him removed from office. The minister, who recently went back on a promise to the States not to bring a proposal to increase GST, was branded 'Pinocchio' and posters bearing his face on the body of the cartoon character, complete with long nose, were placed around the hall. Around 180 people turned out for the rally - far fewer than were expected and well short of the 1,000 who attended the last protest against GST. However, the crowd remained defiant and many expressed their anger and frustration at the proposed cuts and the current state of Jersey's political system.

A rally against tax rises and government budget cuts was attended by about 450 people at Jersey's Fort Regent on Wednesday evening.
The treasury minister, Senator Philip Ozouf, wants to raise the Goods and Services tax (GST) to 5% and cut £65m from States spending.
He was called "Pinocchio" at the union rally for breaking a promise made in 2008 not to increase GST.(2)

It was a disappointing turnout for the organisers of Wednesday night's union rally against public sector cuts in Jersey. They'd expected a thousand, but only 400 people went along to air their gripes over pay cuts, reduced public services and the planned rise in GST. Despite the low turnout - the union behind the rally won't back down without a fight. They now plan to ballot members on industrial action.(3)

So how many people did attend the rally at Fort Regent? The JDA reports on the meeting on their own website, but doesn't give any figures.

Said Mr. Vibert: "This was a chance for islanders who feel strongly about the issues to come together at Fort Regent and by their presence illustrate to the Council of Ministers how deep the feeling is against the path they are walking."(4)

But he doesn't say how many came together at Fort Regent.

The BBC reported "about 450", while Channel Television was slightly behind that at 400. How the JEP managed to get 180 turning out is beyond belief - either their reporter was simply unable to count or just looked around and guessed - or it was an example of deliberate spin - "far fewer than were expected..." certainly indicates it was used in that way.

Interestingly, while both the JEP and CTV mention an expected turnout of around a thousand, that figure made its way into the BBC but with a much more positive slant concerning a petition (unmentioned by the JEP or CTV):

A petition calling for Senator Ozouf to be dismissed as treasury minister has been signed by about 1,000 people.(2)

Geoff Southern made a great show of making Philip Ozouf out to be a liar, but somehow failed to mention that Philip Ozouf had made a very public apology at the end of October and explained why he had to change his position. Can we now expect an apology for Geoff Southern regarding his own change of position?

The St Helier deputy and Jersey Democratic Alliance member says if Senator Stuart Syvret doesn't return to the island in April he'll put himself forward in the by-election.(5)

Yet Senator Syvret did return to the Island, and Deputy Southern did stand against him. Clearly Senator Ozouf is not the only one who can be called Pinocchio!

The JDA website notes that: "Regardless of the fact that Trevor, Shona and Debbie are no longer part of the JDA, they still support all of our objectives and we will not be putting up candidates against them." Let's hope they stick to what they have said this time!

The rally also disclosed the possibility of industrial action.

Despite the low turnout - the union behind the rally won't back down without a fight. They now plan to ballot members on industrial action. (2)
Unite is now planning to ballot its members about possible industrial action over the planned government spending cuts.(2)

It is good to see they are balloting their members on this occasion, especially as last time, when Deputy Southern stood for election as Senator, the union decided to sponsor him and back him with money - despite not deciding to ballot members before spending their money. I asked one or two union members whom I knew about this, and they not only told me their had been no ballot of membership, but that they would have voted against any such decision as a waste of money, since Deputy Southern was already in the States.

Is it any wonder that so few people decided to turn up to Fort Regent, especially Union members who are used to the rank and file not being consulted? If there is to be better democracy in Jersey, then the lack of democracy within the JDA and the Unions is not a good sign. I am certainly not that happy when I also read on the JDA AGM that:

In discussions under " any other business" the president outlined that he had prepared a training programme for new members who are prepared to stand under the JDA banner in the forthcoming elections) (4)

I couldn't find details of that programme, despite it being described as "available elsewhere on this site", but it sounds very much as if there is a JDA "mould" and candidates are expected to conform to that, thereby reducing possibility of dissenters such as those who left the party before. Aren't members supposed to help decide policy rather than the other way round?

Links
(1) http://www.thisisjersey.com/2010/11/25/ozouf-must-go-call/#ixzz16cVXYC00
(2) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-11838085
(3) http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline_jerseynews/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=491963
(4) http://jdajersey.co.uk/default.asp
(5) http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline_jerseynews/displayarticle.asp?id=486042&showallcomments=1

A New Hope

The Jersey Evening Post reports, with not a little glee, that the party's over for the JDA. It highlights the recent resignation of three deputies. The leader article entitled a blow for party politics goes further and notes caustically:

Political parties stand or fall on popular support and there has been precious little evidence that the JDA has ever commanded a great deal in the way of grass-roots sympathy. Deputy Southern's poor performance in the recent Senatorial by-election, in which he placed fifth, supports this view.

I would beg to differ. There is clear evidence from the last deputies election that there is considerable support from the average voter in St Helier for the style of politics espoused by the JDA, even if this does not mean the electorate would sign up to all the JDA manifesto commitments. It is perhaps not surprising that it is in town where we find bedsit land and the poorer population who are more on the margins of society that the JDA did well. Outside of town, in the more prosperous country parishes where traditional granite farmhouses, sea views, and luxury flats on the market at around half a million pounds are found, it was most likely that the JDA would fare worst. Their constituency is naturally with the underdog and it has to be remembered that this now includes a Jersey born Portuguese population which is often treated as second rate cheap labour.

The success of candidates such as Paul Le Clair, Mike Higgins, and Judy Martin, who represent and support very much the same constituency shows that there is still a place for the likes of Trevor Pitman, Shona Pitman, and Debbie de Sousa. That does not stop the JEP leader writer, Chris Bright, from indulging in caustic overblown rhetoric:

It has to be said that neither the remnant of the JDA or its three defectors can be regarded as suitable bases for a new and perhaps much to be desired centrist movement. Leopards find it nigh impossible to change their spots and the electorate will wonder how people who have pressed a left-wing agenda so vehemently and aggressively can hope to convince anyone that they suddenly represent the sweet reason and moderation of the middle ground.

And yet if you read the same Jersey Evening Post, you will see that at the heart of working for the parish on the Battle of Flowers float was none other than Debbie de Sousa, whose strong support and pride in her own parish comes across extremely clearly in the article. That same article illustrates, with her thanks to other participants in the battle, the other contestants who came to the help of the town float. There is no left-wing agenda present here except that of showing how different people can work together for the common good -- which seems a better acted parable for those members who have left the JDA and who seek to work with any other States members for social justice and a better society for all the inhabitants of our island, not just for a few.

It is rather the doctrinaire high-handed manner of Mr Southern which may work against the remnants still within the JDA. I remember when GST was just on the drawing board arguing in e-mails with Mr Southern over his rigid stance against GST which I felt sure would fail and be an electoral liability for him. Another politician who asked me for advice at that time was also uneasy over GST. I thought there would be such overwhelming support within the house for GST that a pragmatic position of voting goes for GST and making a specific declaration that they would vote for exemptions would be a much better position to adopt. That indeed formed part of their platform -- while Mr Southern failed in a full frontal attack against GST and was left in a position of retreat, now having to adopt a fight for exemptions -- which seemed a humiliating climb-down. Yet it was precisely that which I had warned him that he would have to do in our exchange of e-mails before the election. But he would not budge. He indeed, does not seem to have changed his spots.

Incidentally, the Jersey Evening Post as usual got their facts wrong about the Jersey Democratic movement. It did not fade and die but tried once more with four candidates much later in the 1970s long after the Progressive party had disbanded - Norman Le Brocq, Stella Perkins, Chris Wakeham and someone whose name escapes me all stood under a single JDM banner - the posters had four squares with each of the candidates photos. Admittedly it failed in the election, apart from Norman Le Brocq, but it showed that it was far from moribund, continuing as a campaign group after that:

After the Second World War the right-wing Progressive Party was disbanded as soon as it had won a landslide victory over the left-wing Jersey Democratic Movement, which duly faded and died.

Moreover it was still active in late 1980s and early 1990s at the second-hand bookshop in St James Street where either Norman Le Brocq (who was in the States) or Stella Perkins would give advice and take up any cases which people brought to them. I know this because as an avid bookworm, I was frequently in the bookshop when I wasn't at Thesaurus (which I remember when it was originally at Sand Street).

Links
Read more: http://www.thisisjersey.com/2010/08/16/a-blow-for-party-politics/#ixzz0wn7HURT0

A Crisis in the JDA?

I've just been reading the following:

As hinted at recently, the main author of this blog left the JDA today, and I am taking the blog with me. So, I have contrived something else to fit the initials JDACMB and renamed it. Without the JDA link, we can accept copy from anybody, if it is suitable

http://jdacmb.blogspot.com/

Jersey Discussion, Argument, Comment and Message Blog

David Rotherham

I was not totally surprised that David Rotherham has left the JDA, as he has been extremely critical of Deputy Geoff Southern's decision to stand as Senator in the recent by-election, with some pretty solid arguments on why it was unwise. A new blog has been created for the JDA at:

http://jdacouncilblog.blogspot.com/

As the old blog contains about 60% of material from David Rotherham and about 30% from Trevor Pitman, I would be extremely interested to note if Trevor will now appear on the new blog or the old, and if the new JDA blog will remain largely moribund. The section on the JDA's own website (http://jdajersey.co.uk/ ) under the link on "news" does not inspire confidence. The latest news appears to come from the appointment of patrons in May 2009, along with the heading " a new council" which has the same date. One wonders who bothers to keep the blog up to date and how long David Rotherham will remain on the biographies. For the time being, if you want a picture to his face, you can see it here, along with this comment about his age:

Bad things can happen to people who let their date of birth appear on the internet," David continues with a smile, "so to date me: let's just say the oldest local news I can remember is the Caesarea being the brand new mail boat!"

The Caesarea, as those of us with as those of us with long memories can recall was the male boat which replaced the Isle of Sark with her maiden voyage on 18 November 1960 - sorry, David, couldn't resist showing off! Those were the days when there really was a mail boat departing in the morning, often with newly weds!

On perusing the JDA website further - the "hot topics" section on the JDA website mentions the recent by-election, which suggests that the Webmaster is updating on a very ad hoc fashion.

What I have been trying to discover from the JDA website and elsewhere is the democratic process by which Geoff Southern gained the approval of the JDA membership before standing as Senator. Was this checked with all party members? Was it the result of a vote by activists alone? Or was the decision taken by a majority of the JDA council members? Or did Mr Southern decide unilaterally, or perhaps after conferring with Ted Vibert?

From the comments on David's blog, it seems to have been "more or less unilateral", with Geoff persuading all of the Council, except the North Coast dwellers, to endorse him. It doesn't look as if the membership got much of a look in. So much for democracy!

The support of the union Unite for Geoff does not inspire confidence in this respect. I have no problems whatsoever with the union deciding to sponsor an individual or a party. After all, we now know that a local businessman effectively sponsored Senator Le Main's publicity - and as long as it is stated, as that was, in the register of members interests, I have no problems with that. Sponsorship is transparent and we are a long way from the days in the 1980s when Cyril Le Marquand could spend thousands on election materials with no questions asked; in hindsight, that was not a good practice and would not happen today.

But my particular gripe is that the union Unite did not ballot its membership before deciding to use their union membership fees to sponsor Mr Southern. I have 100% verifiable evidence of that. And that leads me to question how many JDA members took part in the decision of Mr Southern to stand as Senator, and whether there was an open discussion on that decision.

It is perhaps unsurprising that Mr Rotherham has left the JDA as he was certainly and justifiably critical of that decision, and of the judgement by the JDA and Mr Southern that the catastrophic failure at the polls had done no damage to the JDA. It seems that degree of criticism was not tolerated.

Any political party, even large ones in the UK such as Labour and the Conservatives are to some degree internally a coalition of differing perspectives. That is why even Mrs Thatcher had so-called "wets" in what was arguably a very right-wing cabinet. Tony Blair with a centrist Labour position made sure that John Prescott was included.

It is when a party cannot accommodate and tolerate a degree of diversity that it fragments and loses membership. From an outside point of view, it is too early to judge whether this is happening with the JDA but the signs are not promising. If this party, which is still relatively young, is to survive, it must learn from other jurisdictions and consider its own internal workings to decide precisely how it should function as a group. The Liberals are learning this fast, as they have to accommodate their own critics from within, and work to govern for coalition policies.

In the meantime, readers can still enjoy David Rotherham's excellent and intelligence discussion, arguments, and comments on Jersey society and politics, which he may be able to express more freely as he has been doing rather than curtailing what he thinks to suit a party line. It is a shame he had to leave the JDA and perhaps they may learn lessons from this on how to involve and listen to all the membership.

Election 2010 - Front Runners

Who will get in, and which order will they do it?

All I'm going to do is suggest whom I see as the front runners - whom I would place (in alphabetic order) - together with their strengths and weaknesses.

Francis Le Gresley - he has the advantage of being the "new kid on the block", but is also seen by some as an establishment candidate, perhaps a tad too willing to please the Council of Ministers. Also the part of his manifesto on taxes, balances its ideas (capital gains, higher taxes for incomes over £100k) with the phrase "we must look into the feasibility", which suggests a degree of uncertainty in his own mind. Because he has no baggage may do rather well, and he has worked - albeit as a paid manager - for a charity, which suggests social concern. [Although a lot of people I spoke to were under the impression that when he said "he worked for a charity", he was doing so in an honorary capacity, which is not the case.]

Patrick Ryan - definitely the "thinking businessman" yet with a broad appeal, and a wide ranging manifesto. His past record has both constructive financial elements - the strategic reserve was his brainchild - and some social commitment - voted for exemptions for GST on food. He also managed to get his scrutiny panels to bring in changes, not produce verbose and often filed away reports. Perhaps he has not come over as forcefully as he should - there's a lot of light under his bushel - but certainly should do well. He also has a carefully thought out manifesto over a number of key issues, and some interesting ideas on States reform. He even had an answer prepared when Daniel Wimberley asked a question about Green issues at St Mary!

Geoff Southern - the JDA candidate of "the left". Whether his endorsement by the Union will get members out to support him (although they weren't asked when their union decided to sponsor him) remains to be seen; past support from Union chiefs didn't translate into support from Union Indians. He has justified standing in a letter saying that "Senators carry more weight", which sounds like a statement about obesity. In practice, as everyone knows, Senators don't really carry more weight - they still have one vote - except in their title, which sounds grander, and that they are open to all Islanders to call upon (although there is no reason why Deputies can't help anyone where there is need.) Voting for Geoff Southern is voting for someone already in the States, and will lead to another bi-election, and I suspect most people will see this as pretty pointless.

Stuart Syvret - he will get support for bringing a number of issues to light - which he still does - read the latest entry about the appalling treatment of Carolyn Labey - but may well have alienated a lot of people by his hyperbole - he doesn't believe in politeness, and bandies insults left right and centre. Also his move into self-imposed exile, which he says was necessary to avoid Data Protection problems locally while publishing abroad, has not had the explanation taken on board by lots of his former supporters. They tell me "he's lost it". So it will be interesting to see if blog and hustings performances can turn into votes, especially as the JEP certainly is gunning for him to lose (the recent editorial makes Rob Shipley's comments on balance look particularly suspect!). But fighting the election more or less on one issue may be detrimental.

Union Democracy or Barony?

Geoff Southern had a large advertisement in the JEP recently, sponsored by the UNITE union.

People have wondered if the Unite members were balloted over their funding for this advertisement, and if not, why not?

In fact, I have done a bit of checking up, and I can confirm from speaking to several Union members that they certainly knew nothing about it.

I would also just comment that if they did not ballot members, that is not Geoff's fault. If they came to him, and said "we can sponsor you" - it is their decision, their responsibility, and not his; it would be unfair to blame him for how the union may behave in using funds without asking their membership.

Perhaps he should have asked if the membership were behind that, but they may not need to consult the membership on matters like that, and who would look a gift horse in the mouth?

In England, laws were introduced in the 1980s to ensure that the Unions behaved in a more democratic manner, and the Union leaders could not so easily behave like Barons as if the Unions were their own personal fiefdoms. This does not appear to be the case in Jersey. Perhaps, in the interests of democracy, and accountability, the JDA could look into this - maybe a job for Deputy Southern?

Geoff Southern to be charged

Because he assisted Parishioners in getting postal vote applications (and perhaps explaining how to complete them), Deputy Geoff Southern is to be charged with breaking the election law today. This is from the Deputy himself, who was being interviewed on BBC Radio Jersey around 7.15 this morning, and said "I fully expect to be charged later today."

I did not have time to hear his defense, but I suspect that part of his reason was that there was no one official appointed to help people fill in postal applications, or go around asking people if they wanted to apply for postal applications. This was a case of discrimination by neglect, disenfranchising those people who are informed by the States that they can apply, and then left to get on with it - knowing of course that is in itself an obstacle.

In the UK, of course, there are no rules on stopping campaigners and canvassers helping with either the registration or the submission of postal votes. What is the case is that it is an offence to complete a postal vote that is not your own, and to influence how others complete their postal vote. If you have any allegations of fraud, they should be referred to the police.

I suspect that the argument of "undue influence" will be the main one made against Geoff Southern. What we are certainly not going to see is UK style fraud:

The court has heard that the elections were subverted by threats, intimidation and the wholesale theft of postal votes, with thousands of others being diverted to "safe houses" where the ballots were allegedly filled in on an "industrial scale". Bags full of voting papers are alleged to have changed hands in the streets; a postman is said to have been threatened with death.

Some people, particularly the elderly, may not find applying for forms and completing them easy, and if the States are not going to address this issue, then while technically breaking the law, Geoff Southern is highlighting a serious weakness in the system. The recently leaked report on Income Support shows how a bureaucratic culture of forms may not engage well with the people it seeks to help. What may seem simple to a civil servant may seem a Byzantine labyrinth of complexity to someone elderly, or who comes from a different country, and whose English is poor. While I would not condone Geoff Southern's actions, it seems to me that the Jersey system has deficiencies which those examining this case would do well to address.

Links:
http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/faq/voting_by_post/how_secure_is_a_postal_vote.aspx
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/politically-incorrect-529281.html

Population: Fudging the Issue

http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/questions/14254-48338-21102008.htm

I notice that Geoff Southern asked a question about population: "Does the Chief Minister accept, in the light of recent population, immigration and job growth figures that one of the first tasks of a new Council of Ministers will be to bring to the Assembly a policy for controlling population and, if not, why not?"

After a lot of waffle about "Keeping Jersey Special", and the success in the performance of the economy, the bottom line answer was as follows:

In its 'Keeping Jersey Special' report, published in July 2008, the current Council of Ministers identified that meeting the challenge of the ageing population whilst maintaining the Island as a successful and wonderful place to live will require the right balance between social, economic and environmental policies.

Based on detailed analysis and consultation with the public, the report concluded that, whilst it is possible to combine the above policies to reach a sustainable path to meet the challenges ahead, this is unlikely to be achieved without some level of inward migration.

So in other words, a vague generality - "some level of inward migration". One of the Council of Ministers who was re-elected was Philip Ozouf, and his elect site is almost as uninformative.

Q: Should there be a limit on the population of Jersey? If so, what?

A: Yes. The best way to control population is by limiting the number of jobs available. In the past this has been controlled by a combination of the Housing and Regulation of Undertakings Laws. These laws are being re-written into one law and in future will be more effective. In addition, a population register is to be introduced. This will give us better information. The States will debate and set a figure, this has to take account of the fact that the population is ageing. It is important to maintain the ratio of workers to non-workers to keep taxes lower.

http://www.ozouf.je/section/41/index.html

What this reads as saying is (1) I'm not going to give you a figure that I can be held accountable to (2) "maintain the ratio of workers to non-workers" is the key issue in setting and changing any numbers.

Well, not precisely:
- capacity of sewage system
- capacity of reservoirs (and usuage)
- maximum load possible on electricty cabling infrastructure
and any other infrastructure matters

These, if I am not mistaken, are better indicators of the ceiling for population, and it is about time that figures were calculated back from these, rather than simply looking at jobs and the ageing population.

One Angry Man

I heard an angry man on the radio today. Senator Walker was back, speaking in a very low voice (has he been taking lessons in media presentation) saying that he was extremely angry, he had not knowingly mislead the house, he had not been briefed about Las Vegas at the time, and his opponents were making political capital out of it in election year.

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

Curious Omissions on BBC Radio Jersey

Am I the only one, I wonder to have noted the discrepancy between the BBC radio Jersey news coverage of the Waterfront saga, and their web page news at

www.bbc.co.uk/jersey/news

The broadcast coverage has been extensive, but on the web news there has been little or nothing.

A few days ago, we had Jim Perchard's resignation from Web (Waterfront enterprise Board), citing a possible conflict of interest in the position of Gerald Voisin, the chairman of Web.

Now we have the censure motion by Geoff Southern, which is mind-boggling for the way in which it mentions the controversy:

"Senator Walker has already apologised to the House for giving it information regarding the project that he believed to be true, but which he subsequently discovered was not. "

It is almost as if they are leaning over backwards not to mention Harcourt Developers by name, or the fact that the information was to do with the denial of a lawsuit against Harcourt, and which was found to be true. Really, it tells the average reader less than nothing about the matter, and one has to wonder why. Read it (see below) and ask if the average reader in the UK could tell what all the fuss was about, or indeed anything of import.

Could it have something to do with the fact that the broadcast programmes are local in scope, but the web pages are part of the national BBC news coverage, and someone, for whatever reason, doesn't want details of the matter made too widely known?

I don't see necessarily some deep conspiracy, but more an editorial policy of fence-sitting, especially where Ministers in the States are concerned.

---

.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/jersey/7457320.stm

Chief minister faces censure vote

Jersey Chief Minister Frank Walker is facing censure for not providing the States with accurate information about plans for a new financial quarter.

The application for censure is being brought by Deputy Geoff Southern.

He believes States members were "seriously misled" during the debate on the development of the new Esplanade quarter in St Helier.

If Deputy Southern's application goes ahead, Senator Walker will face a censure vote in the House.

Esplanade quarter

In 2004, before becoming chief minister, Senator Walker narrowly defeated another vote of censure.

He had been accused of pressuring planning authorities to approve an infill site on a friend's land in Trinity.

Deputy Southern brought the latest application for censure because, he said, members were not given full and accurate information about the Esplanade quarter masterplan and in particular its economic impact.

He claims two "vital" documents were withheld from States members.

The esplanade development includes plans to submerge a dual-carriageway and build several thousand feet of office space and living accommodation.

It will link St Helier's waterside area with the rest of the town.

Senator Walker has already apologised to the House for giving it information regarding the project that he believed to be true, but which he subsequently discovered was not.