Elections Review - Part 1: The Alliance Party is Over

Jersey Alliance

The Jersey Alliance crashed out of the election with only on sitting candidate, and that being a Constable who only had to face NOTA, rather than a real person. Even there, there were a number of NOTA votes against him. So what went wrong?

To understand this, I think you have to go back to the history of the Alliance party. Founded by Gregory Guida, it boasted other sitting States members as founders - John le Fondre, Lindsay Ash, Rowland Huelin, Susie Pinel, Judy Martin, Scott Wickenden, Richard Buchanan, Phillip Le Sueur - all of those being Ministers or Assistant Ministers with the exception of Philip Le Sueur.

It contained, therefore, a good many members of the Council of Ministers and Assistant Ministers, and in those early days, part of its declared remit was to carry on the unfinished business of the Government. In a situation where the status quo was criticised a lot by the general public, that was not good for voting. 

However, it is always difficult to gauge criticism - is it a few vocal people sounding off, or a general consensus? And of course given the make up of the Alliance in these early days, how could it stand for any radical discontinuity - that would mean its members were critical of the policies they themselves were largely responsible for bringing in.

Sir Mark Boleat then came on board as the director of policy, and after that things began to change rather rapidly. John le Fondre - as Chief Minister the natural leader - did not stand, and Sir Mark was elected unopposed. Richard Buchanan was the first to declare he was not standing again, followed by Susie Pinel and Scott Wickenden, and then Judy Martin left the party, followed by new candidate Piers Sangan. 

Now people do decide not to stand for all manner of reasons, but for Judy and Piers it was obvious that they no longer saw themselves aligned with the new direction of the party. And some of the others by this time may well have concluded that even under an Alliance banner, they would probably be voted out, so better to retire gracefully and with dignity. Who can blame them?

The party was now shaping up very much as one directed by and with policy supplied by its new leader - and he also made it clear that he hoped to put his hat in the ring for Chief Minister. 

Some of the changes did not seem too good - cutting out questions without notice from the States, curtailing the number of questions members could ask and shrinking question time. A slimmed down States also featured, but it was vague on where the slimming down should be - as the Constable's were to remain. Was St Helier to become imbalanced again and lose Deputies? Would it be even across the board? In the words of the song, it's a mystery.

The new policy coming out had  taller housing in St Helier, and more flats without parking in St Helier - and that alone made it feel like a party of the country enclaves, where it was fine to have plenty of parking outside of St Helier, especially with large properties having drives, but the proletariat didn't really need it. An article by former St Helier Deputy Jennifer Bridge close to election date, which made some very sharp criticisms of this idea, can't have helped.

So on the one hand, the policy direction was in some respects quite centre-right, and in terms of "improving" the States sittings, quite authoritarian in tone, and on the other - even though it had haemorrhaged members, it's founding was very much a part of the current government completing what it had started.

The party also fielded candidates in almost every district. Reform had learned a lesson last time when candidates were signed up at short notice, and mostly failed. This time there were a lot of professionals aligned to their policies. Alliance's new candidates - such as Philip Le Claire and James Corbett - were fighting seats in districts which they had no real affiliation with, and that showed, despite some very creditable performances. I know someone who had been looking for vote for James Corbett, for example, as his CV was impressive, but whose lack of knowledge of Parish issues proved too much of a stumbling block.

And finally, Sir Philip Bailhache's Liberal Conservatives came across as in many ways - as Sir Philip himself said after the election - as a "centre right" party. Split votes, as the UK has shown, are never good for parties, and this can't have helped either.

So, in summary:

• Legacy link to government with agenda of "unfinished business"
• Loss of founding members
• Marginalisation of Chief Minister and ascendance of Sir Mark Boleat
• Recent return to Jersey of new leader - and push to be next Chief Minister despite recent arrival in Jersey
• Proposed changes to States which would push out backbenchers more
• Candidates assigned to districts just to get them in almost every district regardless of fit
• A competing party of the centre-right

Any one of those would be a factor against doing well at the polls, but together it is clear they created a powerful reaction against the Alliance.

Postscript: St Mark Boleat's election roots.

It also was apparent that Sir Mark was renting in St Helier, standing in St Clement, and claiming "he had always regarded it as his home", had kept very quiet about that. 

He had researched his family tree extensively in the past, and the Boleat family came over as immigrants from France in the late 19th century and did settle in St Clement, where Sir Mark would have been born - his father was Parish foreman. I think he missed a trick there in not emphasising the Parish connection enough in a semi-rural Parish like St Clement where that would click with the older population.