Senator Alan Maclean and Senior Citizens

Senator Alan Maclean and Senior Citizens

“We owe a great deal to our senior citizens who made our Island the very special place that we enjoy today.”

“In other societies the senior members of a family are treated like ‘royalty’ and honoured for their wisdom and experience.”

“It is essential that senior citizens are afforded the respect and care that they deserve after years of paying their taxes and contributing to our community.”

“Inflation and especially the rising costs of food and fuel are impacting on retired people living on fixed incomes. We must ensure that help is available and targeted in a fair and dignified manner to those in genuine need.”

“There needs to be a special focus on our senior citizens to understand their needs and ensure that the vulnerable and less well off are supported in a fair and dignified way.”

- Election Manifesto: 2014

Christmas Bonus removed – where the previous Minister for Social Security, Francis Le Gresley, worked out a means of retaining it at a reduced sum, against demands to scrap it, Susie Pinel proposed and succeeded in scrapping it altogether.

Senator Alan Maclean voted for scrapping the bonus. So much for the “respect and care that they deserve after years of paying their taxes and contributing to our community.”

Of course his response would be to say it is not targeted to those in most need – so why not amend the proposition to make it means tested? The failure to do so I think illustrates the hollow nature of his manifesto.

The replacement puts the money back in the pot where it supposedly can be targeted to those most in need, although as there is no detailed chain of cause and effect, I am somewhat suspicious of that. Usually when money goes back "in the pot", that is the last we see of it. Clearly former Senator Le Gresley didn’t see it that way: something direct is always better because you can see it making a difference.

There was an amendment to the Medium Term Plan by Deputy Judy Martin: After the words “as set out in Summary Table C” insert the words “except that the net revenue expenditure of the Chief Minister’s Department and the Treasury and Resources Department should be reduced in 2016 in the sum of £90,000 and £67,000 respectively and the net revenue expenditure of the Social Security Department be increased by £157,000 to fund the continued provision of means-tested free television licences for the over-75s"

Funding for TV Licence for over 75s – which is means tested, only retained by one vote. Whether the Minister, Susie Pinel, honours this is another matter! But means testing means that it is given only to those in genuine need, which is what Senator Maclean wants.

Nevertheless, Senator Maclean voted against this, despite the fact that it clearly fits the remit of help that is “available and targeted in a fair and dignified manner to those in genuine need.”  

In fact, a careful review of his manifesto notes these caveats which abound – help should be “available and targeted”, and it is “the vulnerable and less well off” among the pensions who should be helped. But in this case, the TV licence is means tested, so it is for precisely those people - targetted – and yet he voted against it.

And pensioners have also recently lost Prime Talk, a subsidy that allowed retired people to get a cheaper home phone line. It has been replaced with a new Senior Home Service, which gives a home phone number but over the mobile network, using a special handset. There will also be an increase in call costs as PrimeTalk customers paid 7p for half an hour, the new charge will be 2p/minute.

Alan Maclean’s silence has been deafening on how this affects the elderly. There seems to be little evidence of a “special focus” from him “on our senior citizens to understand their needs”, despite Daphne Minihane, of Age Concern, saying that it is a lifeline, especially for the elderly who are housebound.

Restrictions on free travel for pensioners have been suggested by Transport Minister Eddie Noel.

This has not reached the States yet, but should it, I would lay odds that Senator Maclean would vote in favour, notwithstanding his manifesto enthusiasm for the idea that pensioners should be “treated like ‘royalty’ and honoured”.

Selling the Family Silver to Pay for Caviar Costs

“St Saviour's Hospital to be sold to help balance books? States could sell off large capital assets to help solve projected £145 million deficit” (BBC News)

The problem with selling one’s assets like St Saviour’s Hospital is that it can only be done once.

It is worth looking at other countries to see how they’ve tried to flog off assets to fill their own black holes.

In 2012, Greece was forced to sell off some its beautiful islands to foreign buyers, to chip away at its enormous debts. As the Guardian noted:

“Greece embarks on a firesale - Islands, palaces royal estates and embassies must go as fears grow that country has entered full-blown depression. When you hit hard times, it is time to pawn or part with the family silver – and an unprecedented clearout is now under way in Athens. Greece has announced it will sell anything it can do without – and in the case of the debt-choked nation that means letting go of islands, royal palaces, prime real estate, marinas, airports, roads, the state-owned gas company, lottery and post office. Indeed anything, really, that can be sold.”

That was in 2012, and Greece is still in trouble. If you ask most economists, they will say that one fundamental problem was the failure to restructure public expenditure, which is something that Jersey knows very well about. Selling off capital assets could not cap the problem.

Former Senator Ben Shenton has noted that moves were afoot when he was in the States to reform the Public sector, but it has never really happened. What we have is “shroud waving”, cuts that are trivial, like the Christmas bonus, which could be funded by losing a few middle management posts.

“Joined up Government” was the cliché of the move to Ministerial government. Politicians like Frank Walker and Philip Ozouf were full of it. That never happened, and instead Ministers took over bolted together separate departments under one umbrella title, but still keeping under the hood as separate, giving very much a  “silo” mentality.

I remember one Deputy who had been at Property Services telling me that while he was trying to centralise administration offices, and get benefits from removing wasteful duplication, he was hitting a brick wall erected by some senior civil servants. It is pure “Yes Minister”:

Annie Hacker: Reform the Civil Service.
Jim Hacker: - Impossible. Catch 22.
Annie Hacker: - Why?
Annie Hacker: Supposing I suggested 50 terrific reforms, who would have to implement them?
(BOTH) The Civil Service.

In October 2013, Italy played the asset stripping game. As the Daily Mail reported:

“Never mind a place in the sun, if you’ve ever dreamed of owning your very own Italian castle, or an island in the Venetian lagoon, now’s the time. As the cash-strapped Italian government attempts to tackle its deficit, the state is to sell off some of the family silver. The sale of the 50 properties will raise £424.8million, Minister for the Economy Fabrizio Saccomanni said. The sale was approved as part of an emergency decree aimed at keeping Italy’s 2013 budget deficit within 3 % to avoid corrective action by Brussels. It is not the first time Italy has sold off assets. Last year a succession of lighthouses on the island of Sardinia were sold off to private businesses and converted into hotels, galleries, and museums.”

But as Cate Long noted:

“Hard asset sales will only provide a one-shot infusion of cash to fill a budget hole. There is only so much family silver to sell. Harold Macmillan, towards the end of his career in public life, is said to have likened the Thatcher Government’s use of privatisation proceeds – and this is a characteristically grand analogy that he was making - to selling off the family silver to pay for the grocery bills. “”

In 2013, a UK Parliamentary committee recommended that “When the government dispose off one asset, proceeds there from should be only used for fresh asset creation”. That should be a principle adopted here. Otherwise, in the words of Alex Salmond,  it is like winning the lottery jackpot and then not bothering to set up a savings account!

Failure to plug the gap by selling assets is something that Rob Duhamel also noted in his JEP column. The monies raised will not fill the predicted budget shortfall precisely because it is a one off and relatively small sale, and the problems of the shortfall are annual, and a temporary fix is like putting your finger into the hole in a dyke.

Dutch legend has it that there was once a small boy who upon passing a dyke on his way to school noticed a slight leak as the sea trickled in through a small hole. Knowing that he would be in trouble if he were to be late for school, the boy pocked his finger into the hole and so stemmed the flow of water. Some time later a passer-by saw him and went to get help. This came in the form of other men who were able to effect repairs on the dyke and seal up the leak.

That’s rather the effect of selling the major properties – they are putting a finger in the hole, but unless some real work is done to repair things, it won’t seal up the leak.

What we don’t want is a short term fix, selling large capital assets, and staving off the time for real reforms for a time, but leaving future generations impoverished

References
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/19/debt-ridden-greece-firesale
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2454535/Italy-selling-historic-castle-palace-entire-island-Venice.html
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2015/05/selling-off-family-silver.html

Protest and Survive

“Thousands lined the sides of a proposed new finance centre in St Helier in protest at its development.

The development on the Esplande Car Park, by government-owned Jersey Development Company, will consist of six buildings and a car park. A group including a festival organiser, a former politician and former journalist organised the protest. Treasury Minister, Senator Alan Maclean, has said campaigns against the project were costing the island money. There were up to 3,000 people at the protest from a range of ages and backgrounds.” BBC Radio Jersey

Sean Power said: "There was a lot of passion here, people felt they weren't being listened to and hopefully now they will sit up and pay attention."

I saw Sean cycling round, as a wave of “No, No” was chanted around the perimeter. I saw young people there, as well as old people hobbling on sticks or wheeled walking frames on this pleasant sunny day.

They paid tribute to the fact that a democracy has to allow protest if it is to survive, however much that might irk Senator Maclean.

Just along from me was Max De La Haye and his wife. Max was a former Constable of St Brelade. By no stretch of the imagination could he be described as “left wing”, and yet he had left his beloved dahlias to come here and sit on the old Esplanade wall, once the sea wall.

One thing that emerged from the “Yes Campaign” for the Referendum was that the Constables were a steadying influence in the States, a force for stability, and yet evidently Max has felt that the Council of Ministers has become so disconnected from the ordinary people that he turned out to protest.

And this BBC story also came out of late, another time when Constables are treated with disrespect:

“St John Constable Chris Taylor told the States Assembly yesterday that he and other members of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel had refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement relating to a BNP Paribas appraisal of the viability of the development, following advice from the States Greffier.”

Who was responsible for this request, which showed complete contempt both for the long established principle of Parliamentary privilege, and also for the members of Scrutiny as individuals not to be trusted? Step forward Senator Alan Maclean,

The document has now been released, late in the day. Senator Maclean said that “I have made it clear that I would not release this document, which is commissioned by the States of Jersey Development Company, unless a non-disclosure agreement was signed by the panel, specifically because of the involvement of third parties.”

He has apparent also said that in future matters of confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements in the States “must be clarified”.

He’s done a lot of clarifying recently, but the only thing it has clarified for me is how out of touch the Minister is with the electorate. Had he behaved like this in the run up to the election, it is unlikely that he would have achieved such a high number of votes.

The BBC report on the protest repeats what he said: "It is bad enough seeing front page articles talking about protests against the finance centre with thousands of people. That gets picked up internationally. What sort of impression does that give of this island as a whole? It does no good for any of us."

I have to say that what does no good internationally is a Minister who seems determined to bulldoze his way through obstacles, not refer matters back to the States, and imagines that he can “clarify” his way out of difficulties. It gives the impression to me of a Minister who does not listen, who does not refer his "clarifications" back to the States for proper approval, and who has scant regard for the ideals of representative democracy.

I'm sure that does not do the Island any good, but the remedy lies not with the protestors, but in Senator Maclean's hands. If instead of "clarifying" matters, he brought a proposition to the States to ratify the decision to build with only one pre-let, and with only so many square feet, he would at one stroke undercut the protest. Is he so scared that the States as a whole would not approve it?

It is perhaps not so surprising that Senator Maclean had problems with the promise that no work would start until 200,000 sq ft (18,581 sq m) had been let. He was, after all, responsible for just handing over £200,000 to a film company to make a film that never has been made, and in all likelihood will never be made. He never saw fit to bring that as a proposition to the States. Clearly bringing matters to the States does not sit well with his style of government.

And finally, a lot has been said about Senator Ozouf being mistaken, and yet this exchange in the States Assembly dates from the 9th December 2014, by which time Senator Maclean had risen to his current post. At no point does he contradict the assurances given by Senator Ozouf.

Deputy J.A. Hilton of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the pre-letting of buildings on the Esplanade car park site:

In light of the indications by the previous Minister that the States of Jersey Development Company had to have substantial interest by companies in pre-letting the majority of the gross areas in the proposed Buildings 1 or 4 that were approved by the previous Minister for Planning and Environment, before proceeding to construction on the Esplanade car park site, can the Minister confirm that this is still the case?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):

I am delighted to be able to say on this occasion to the Deputy, yes, I can.

The objective of the States of Jersey Development Company is to deliver projects in the most beneficial and risk-adverse manner. It was proposed, before committing to construction costs, the States of Jersey Development Company will have to secure a sufficient level of legally binding prelets to fund the cost of construction in the first phase of this scheme. Are there any in place and, if so, are they as per assurances given by the Minister for Treasury and Resources on 4th February 2014 in answer to a question to Deputy John Le Fondré where he spoke about pre-lets totalling 180,000 square feet?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

There are a number of interested parties for the building to which the Deputy is referring. I can say that of the total of 470,000 square feet that are available across the entire Esplanade Square development that there are expressions of interest - early stage some of them, I accept - of around about 370,000 square feet. There is significant interest in development on Esplanade Quarter and the Deputy would be, I am sure, interested - as indeed Members will be - to know that in the first quarter of next year we hope that the States of Jersey Development Company will be in a position to secure enough pre-lets, as per the undertaking contained within the M.O.U. (Memorandum of Understanding) that will allow development to progress.

And on the 24th February 2015 he states, again suggesting a high level of pre-lets:

“I might add that in an attempt to de-risk this development we have hamstrung, if I can put it that way, S.O.J.D.C. into undertaking its duties by putting conditions on it such as these pre-lets, which no normal commercial developer would undertake.”

That doesn’t sound like the small amount of space that’s recently been signed as a pre-let by the States of Jersey Development Company. It sounds far more like the original figure given by Senator Ozouf.

Perhaps Senator Maclean would like to “clarify” these answers? Did he too make a mistake?

The Untouchables

"I regard the Masterplan as a living document that must be allowed to evolve and be flexible enough to respond to changing circumstances." (Senator Jim Hacker, "Yes Minister")

Philip Ozouf was “mistaken” with his pre-lets figure of 200,000 square feet. That is how Senator Maclean tried to spin away the assurance that was given in February 2014. Apparently, with this kind of mistake, it doesn’t come to light until just after you have one tenant for an office block.

And now Alan Maclean has “clarified” that we didn’t need that condition because it only applied when Harcourt were developing the site, and now the States is doing so in phases, there is not that risk.

Apparently, with this kind of clarification, matters only need to be "clarified" after you have signed one tenant for an office block and decided to send in the bulldozers.

Scrutiny, meanwhile, were given notice by the same Alan Maclean (who was dismissive of commercial risk of the building) that they needed to sign a disclosure agreement making them personally liable for any leaks of commercially sensitive information. Suddenly unique and unprecedented conditions appear like a conjuring trick.

The Greffier, thank goodness, advised them that this would set a very bad precedent. Constable Chris Taylor from Scrutiny was on BBC Radio to explain about it. This is not Reform; these are central standing politicians who are being treated with distrust as if they cannot behave responsibly in accordance with the standards of Scrutiny. And Alan Maclean gets away with this!

And the whole matter is kept from debate in the States. Scrutiny no longer has time to do its job thanks to Senator Maclean’s refusal to hand over documents until it is too late to prevent the bulldozers going in.

If anything, this reminds me of China, where the rulers decided to just bulldoze out a space for the Olympic stadium, regardless of any people living there.

Now there are no people living on the waterfront, but the same arrogance is present. Senator Maclean, of course, stated before the election that this was his last time in the States – unless of course he decides to “clarify” that!

Like a good conjuror, with a glib patter, there is a lot of trickery and smoke and mirrors. So far, he has not decided to saw Senator Ozouf in half, but the day may be coming soon.

Senator Ozouf is becoming unstuck elsewhere. He did not leave a note, as far as we know, saying “there is no money”, but he did give what seemed to me to be a rather contemptuous dismissal of John le Fondre’s claims about a budget shortfall of around £100 million when speaking to a Scutiny panel - pre-election, of course.

Everything was rosy before the election, but now we know that there was indeed a shortfall, possibly as high as £130 million. The Financial Times reports Alan Maclean saying that “80 per cent of households may have to pay more tax next year. An increase in the marginal rate of income tax from 26 per cent to 27 per cent is under consideration for 2016. The move could raise £8m from lower and middle income earners.”

Evidently Senator Ozouf, in both his statement to scrutiny, and his aim to reduce the marginal rate, was again “mistaken”.

And now Jersey’s Health Minister has announced that the island’s new hospital will be built on a single site.

As Channel News reported: “At a meeting this evening, Senator Andrew Green has confirmed two potential sites are being investigated, but they are waiting to put together a costing plan before naming them.”

“It comes after tens of thousands of pounds has been spent on consultants looking at whether the hospital should be spread over one or two sites.”

And how much money was spent producing a report which went to the States suggesting the Hospital should be built on two sites? And who proposed it to the States? Step forth Senator Ozouf. 

"It became very clear that no other option existed that was realistic, affordable and would deliver a hospital within a timeframe, apart from the dual-site option"

He also appointed a "design champion" - a post which he decided did not need advertisement - "We did not advertise it. We needed to make progress. "

Presumably, his plans, promoted as “the solution”, were – what is that word – “mistaken”.

Meanwhile Senator Ozouf remains an Assistant Minister but with a special prerogative of being part of the Council of Ministers – when he is in the Island, of course. There are no reprimands, no blame apportioned to him, and it seems as if his position is secure as ever. He can come and go as he please rather like the Cheshire cat, for this is Wonderland.

And Alan Maclean can just send it the bulldozers regardless of waiting for Scrutiny reporting back. Forget Scrutiny, because evidently when something is to be forced through, Scrutiny is treated as toothless and ignored. Is this a good way to govern?

It appears that whatever mistakes they make, or how appallingly dictatorial they can be Senator Ozouf and Senator Maclean are the modern “untouchables”. The mistakes of one can be "clarified" away by the other, and no one is ever held accountable.

Diversionary Tactics in Jersey Politics

“Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interest.”

(Thomas Paine)

I'm looking today at two examples of how politicians avoid criticism by playing a kind of verbal jiu-jitsu, turning their opponents criticisms back on themselves.

Attacking people for "scaremongering" is a great diversionary tactic for politicans who want to avoid replying to protestors. It is a political version of the "ad hominem" fallacy, where you avoid answering arguments by casting aspersions on those making criticisms.

Scaremongering Spin – Part 1

Senator Alan Maclean said protests and petitions made it harder to get firms to sign a lease. A petition against the development by the Jersey Development Company currently has about 1,000 signatures.

The minister said: "It is bad enough seeing front page articles talking about protests against the finance centre with thousands of people. "That gets picked up internationally. What sort of impression does that give of this island as a whole? It does no good for any of us.

(Bailiwick Express)

If you fail to take the people with you, if you suddenly change your mind and “clarify” that Senator Ozouf made a mistake, having failed to notice it until 9 months after the last election, then you must expect protests. It is rather an insult to the intelligence of the voter.

I think "clarify" should join "economic with the truth" in the pantheon of political doubletalk. It’s obviously a word that Senator Maclean is very fond of.

At "The Nation" website Katrina vanden Heuvel proposed a new dictionary to debunk the "veritable Orwellian Code of encrypted language" deployed by modern Republicans. She posted several definitions, many in the spirit of Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary. One is exceptionally pertinent:

CLARIFY, v. Repeating the same lie over and over again.

It is remarkable how in the States yesterday, Senator Gorst, while saying that Senator Ozouf made a "mistake" over pre-lets, also picked up on Senator Maclean making a mistake over total office space that has been let to UBS. The remarkable thing is that he was able to pick up on one mistake almost immediately, but it took over a year to see that the other one was a mistake!

Any historian worth their salt will see the sequence of events, and note that the realisation that the pre-let promise was a "mistake" only came about after UBS had signed, and not before, when the States of Jersey Development Company were trying to get UBS to sign. It is obvious that the signing prompted what Deputy Tadier called "moving the goalposts".

Protesting is the life blood of democracy. It is called “freedom of speech”. There are countries where people cannot protest without being locked up, carted off to Gulags, and the like, but in a free society, people can protest.

Suppression of stories is also something which goes on in those other countries where there is no free press. “Pravda” gives the truth that the Russian rulers want the people to hear; dissent is not mentioned.

One has to wonder what kind of society Alan Maclean really wants.

As far as damage to Jersey's international reputation goes, signing up a bank that only last month was ordered to pay $545m to US authorities over forex and Libor scandals is perhaps not something to brag about, and as might be expected, Senator Maclean was silent about that in his fulsome praise for UBS.

And notice the spin – “protests against the finance industry”. The protests are, for the most part, not against the finance industry. They are against the State getting involved in what could be done as well with less risk by the private sector.

Indeed, if one were to see the hand of capitalism anywhere, it would be in that protest. It is State communism which wants State control, and excludes the private sector. It is State communism which would silence dissent, rather than accept it as part of the price of a free society.

What message is sent out by the protests is this: democracy is alive in Jersey, despite the efforts of governments to bury it. People have a right to protest peacefully and it has a vital place in a healthy democracy.

It may not always succeed, but that does not make it any less precious.

Scaremongering Spin – Part 2

Senator Lyndon Farnham said that “ill-informed", "inaccurate" and "scaremongering" comments about Condor Liberation are causing "untold damage to the company, and tourism in Jersey".

As my correspondent Adam Gardiner notes:

“Condor Liberation has frequently cancelled due to weather (today again) and has been out of service for other reasons for an ongoing 2 months. Of the days available to them they have now not sailed on 16 of them and of the remaining have not been on schedule once. That alone is damaging to tourism and peoples confidence in the boat - and Condor as a company.”

“With such a poor record it is more than reasonable that people are asking in questions. It is however the fact that we are not getting straight answers and why speculation and negative comment continues.”

And I’ve also been digging out reports on how much testing it has had. Here’s one probably not seen much in the Australian press:

“Information on the ship outlines that it has the ability to maintain higher speeds in waves and operate in higher wave heights.”

And yet we now are told that this is untested.

‘We had hoped to bring Condor Liberation into service able to sail in greater than 3.5m. wave heights. However, given that it took us a little longer than hoped in preparing the ship, we were not able to complete the necessary trials to secure the higher wave height,’ said executive commercial director Alicia Andrews.

‘To get approval for a higher wave height, we have to have bad enough weather to take the ship out to test it in those conditions. We can’t forecast when we are going to get the right type of weather.

‘The other final point, is that in discussion with the Maritime and Coastguard Association, they advised us that they would like to see the ship in operation with the 3.5m. wave height for a little longer. We are looking for opportunities later in the year to conduct those trials.’

We don’t need attempt to divert attention by use of the “scaremongering” tactic, we need some hard facts, and the lack of those will continue to prompt questions about how suitable the ship is for our waters.

References
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/companies/four-years-on-a-buyer-for-austals-upmarket-ferry/story-fn91v9q3-1226796133956

The Cheat Sheet

honest – 1. fair and just in character or behaviour, not cheating or stealing 2. free of deceit and untruthfulness, sincere 3. fairly earned (an honest living)

honesty – 1. the quality of being honest 2. Truthfulness

The Cheat Sheet

“Promises that the Waterfront office development would not go ahead until tenants had been found for 200,000 square feet of office space have been torn up to get the deal through.”

“We have maintained the spirit of what the States have laid out in terms of de-risking the project.”

(Bailliwick Express)

"There is a level of pre-lets that are required before any of the buildings can go ahead" Sen Ozouf 13/05/15

Alan Maclean has decided to betraying promises made last year to the electorate.

I would have had less objection had the change of use been made clear before the elections last year, but no – it was not. If Alan Maclean, or Ian Gorst, or Philip Ozouf had been honest and said "we are going to have to discard the pre-let provision in order to begin much needed work" - that would have been honest. It might have cost them votes, but not integrity. It would be truthful, and I would admire that.

But would Senator Maclean have done so well in the elections if it was known that he would reveal himself later on a cheat?

I would say that his actions show the utmost contempt for the electorate, and by not mentioning it before last October’s elections, he was misleading the electorate as well.

Clearly this change has come about because has dawned on the Senator (and no doubt Mark Boleat, that éminence grise behind the scenes) that it will never meet those conditions in today's market. A shortcut is needed. Expediency rules.

It has been said that political engagement in Jersey politics has sunk to an all time low. It is not perhaps surprising when those who are supposed to lead by example instead present only an example of duplicity.

Dishonesty in politics is the number one reason why Jersey people don’t vote.

If I played Monopoly like Alan Maclean has acted with the Waterfront, and had an empty plot, but  I did not have enough for a hotel, but only enough for a small house, I’d simply grab a hotel and put it on my square on the board.

If there were cries from others that I was cheating, I would tell them that in fact I could make up the rules or break the rules to suit myself, although I would not be so blatant. I'd use spin.

I would say that “I have maintained the spirit of the rules of Monopoly”. I could say that I will have enough from people landing on my square and paying me to pretend that I'd bought the hotel in the first place.

But I think most people would agree that I was a cheat.

It is somehow seen as excusable for politicians to make and break promises made to the house, as they see fit. After all, it was Alan Maclean’s predecessor as Treasury Minister, not him.

But Senator Maclean himself was happy not to speak out against that until after the election, indeed, just now, when it seems as if the honourable way of getting the project started - keeping that pledge - would mean that it would never happen.

Now it appears that Senator Ozouf "made a mistake". It has apparently taken since last October's elections  for Senator Maclean to discover this gem! We are supposed to believe that it has taken seven months for him to suddenly realise that!

It has clearly been a sudden and remarkable Damascus road experience, and he has been struck down by a blinding light, only to come to the revelation that Senator Ozouf was wrong to give such a guarantee. Unlike the story of St Paul on the road to Damascus,  I suspect the voice whispering in Senator Maclean's ear was not God, but Mark Boleat. 

Clearly the statement that GST will not increase given by the good Senator and the Council of Ministers is not worth the paper it is printed on. At any moment, particular when hard pressed, they will find that all other avenues have been exhausted, and like the Crocodile crying tears as it devours its hapless prey, they will raise GST.

I’ll finish with this quotation from Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary, which rather sums up how I feel about politicians who discover they are bound by the rules of the game, and then tear the rulebook up.

POLITICIAN, n. An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared... As compared with the statesman, he suffers the disadvantage of being alive.

Fantasy Island comes to Jersey

Do you remember the TV show called "Fantasy Island"? It starred Ricardo Montalbán as Mr. Roarke, the mysterious overseer of a mysterious island somewhere in the Pacific Ocean, where people from all walks of life could come and live out their fantasies, albeit for a price.

I sometimes feel that there are a few Jersey politicians who are behaving as if they were on Fantasy Island, living out their fantasies, whether it is a Minister permitting  grants of £200,000 to film companies apparently with very little due diligence before signing off the cash, or a Minister sounding out across the Island on BBC Radio Jersey about how police should be armed with a Spiderman web gun.

Here, then, are two examples of local politicians who have strayed onto Fantasy Island. The price, in this instance, is met by the taxpayer.

Crystal Ball Gazing

I see from the JEP that the film Crystal Island has been delayed and may not start in the summer at all:

"Keith Cavele has met Economic Development representatives to discuss the latest developments in the Crystal Island project. Plans for developing a network of creative industries to support film production generally in Jersey were also discussed. While the meeting has been described as 'productive' by both parties, a number of setbacks with the film have also been identified which could lead to the filming schedule being delayed further." (1)

A cynic might translate that line about "setbacks" as follows:

Director: We need more cash
EDD: Well, we can't give you any!

Isn't it interesting that when matters are good PR, as when the film was first mooted, the Minister - Alan Maclean - was the person grabbing the headlines and publicity, but when the news is not so good, it is just "representatives" (and who are these nameless individuals?) meeting Keith Cavele.

I think Senator Maclean deserves an Ostrich of the Week Award. The golden Ostrich is like the Oscar, but it is handed out to people who give away taxpayers money to film projects which may never be made. And then bury their heads in the sand.

I wonder if the Senator will be in the audience to see Psychic Sally at Fort Regent, or request a private consultation to look into her crystal ball and see what the prospects of Crystal Island are, or for that matter, his chances of re-election.

The Amazing Duhamelman

Every so often Rob Duhamel astounds me with the extraordinary off the wall things he says. I have to pinch myself to make sure I am not dreaming, and that an elected politician could actually say such things seemingly without embarrassment.

This was the case on Sunday, when in the Politics Hour, the subject of Tasers came up. Subject to the most stringent rules on deployment, including permitting only trained firearms officers being allowed to use them, the States have voted in favour of their introduction.

That last requirement, which I made the case for in my own submission to Scrutiny, is necessary. A trained firearms officer not only knows how to fire accurately, he or she also is trained not to be trigger happy. Training is as much about learning not to deploy the firearm except as last resort as using it. That's unlike some UK forces, when a minimal training is given to ordinary officers, sometimes leading to tragic consequences.

But Deputy Duhamel was firmly against Tasers full stop. Citing Isaac Asimov, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent", he gave the impression that any use of force by the police must therefore reflect badly on their competence. I suspect he has rarely been confronted by aggressive drunks.

In fact, of course, it is not Asimov who says that, but a character - Salvor Hardin - in one of Asimov's Foundation stories. To identify a character's beliefs with those of the authors is a mistake; if it is not a form of the biographical fallacy, it comes close. In another of the stories, the heroine saves the day by shooting a psychologist with a blaster before the villain learns their secrets. There is not one iota of criticism in any story on this; rather the narrative, and other characters praise the courage of the heroine.

Having said his piece, Deputy Duhamel suggested the police response should perhaps also look to science fiction, and to the hero known as the amazing Spiderman. He shoots webs from his hands and these wrap round the villains, and incapacitate them in a harmless way.

Why, speculated the Deputy, could not the technology be developed for a "gloop gun" which would ensnare the violent criminal in sticky goo, and prevent them from hurting anyone?

The obvious answer is that Spiderman is a fictional character, and his spider web does not exist in the real world. But apparently something rather like a "gloop gun" does exist - my thanks to Dave Rotherham for pointing it out. Wikipedia noted that:

"Sticky foam is an incapacitant, used when less lethal force is required, consisting of various extremely tacky and/or tenacious materials carried in compressed form with a propellant and used to block, entangle, and impair individuals. A National Institute of Justice-funded project at Sandia National Laboratory developed a "gun" which could fire multiple shots of sticky foam."

However, there is a fly in the ointment (an appropriate cliché where Spiderman is cited!):

"Problems with this technology include: the serious risk of smothering (suffocating) the subject; skin clean-up (the foam may not be toxic, but solvents are often harsh); "gun" clogging; targeting and firing; and gun cleaning."

A photo of deployment can be seen at the end of this blog.

In fact, it is not nearly as simple to deploy as Spiderman's web gun, which is perhaps not surprising because that is, after all, science fiction. Here's a description:

"The image of soldiers blasting away with soapy-looking foam instead of using riot batons was almost quaint. With the foam stored in silver cylinders mounted on backpacks, the sticky foam gun had a kind of campy James Bond jetpack look to it, like something from the future, if your present is, say, 1958."

"After a person has been immobilized, the sticky foam, which is made out of rubbers, resins, oils, and flame retardants, can be removed, eventually, with hard scrubbing and baby oil."(4)

The official tests have this to say:

a) sticky foam adheres immediately to skin,
b) mineral oil (baby oil) is a reasonable cleaner for removing sticky foam from skin,
c) Using mineral oil to remove sticky foam from skin requires significant mechanical effort (5)

Its deployment was not perfect; some physical force was also needed to subdue people after the sticky foam was used, and there was a potential suffocation risk

There seemed however to be no indication that Deputy Duhamel was aware of the problems with sticky foam when he was eulogising about his "gloop gun".

I sometimes get the feeling that the good Deputy has some good ideas, but he never quite manages to subject them to critical thinking before unleashing them on the general public.

No, the bearded holder of the gloop gun is NOT Deputy Duhamel!

Links
(1)   http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2014/04/08/fantasy-film-may-not-start-this-summer/
(2)   https://www.jersey.com/English/sightsandactivities/eventscalendar/Pages/Event.aspx?AttractionID=7987
(3)   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky_foam
(4)   http://cabinetmagazine.org/issues/22/mcweeny.php
(5)   http://www.aquafoam.com/papers/Scott1.pdf
(6) http://cabinetmagazine.org/issues/22/STICKY-FOAM-1_v2.jpg

Coming up later in the States

An Innovative Strategy
 
Coming up later in the States is Jersey Innovation Fund: Board Remuneration. Having voted to establish an Innovation fund, and having appointed Tim Herbert as Chairman, the Minister for Economic Development has now seen fit to give some idea of costs involved.
 
The States are asked "to refer to their Act dated 1st May 2013 in which they approved the establishment of the Jersey Innovation Fund and agreed the Revised Operational Terms of Reference April 2013, and agree to vary the Revised Operational Terms of Reference so that Board members may be remunerated for their work."
 
Having approved the Board, the States are hardly likely to rescind the original vote, but it does seem a very slip-shod way of going about matters. Why could this have not been anticipated before? There seems to have been rather inadequate consideration of the need for extra remuneration in the initial proposal.
 
We are told "During the recruitment process it has become clear that the time commitment required of the non-executive Board members will be greater than originally anticipated". There is no indication anywhere in the proposition of how much time was originally anticipated, or how much extra time is now anticipated.
 
As an exercise in obfuscation, Senator Maclean's proposition can scarcely be bettered. He is clearly at the peak of his powers, and should surely be awarded the Sir Humphrey Appleby Award for the largest number of words conveying the minimal amount of information. Just consider this little gem, which gives absolutely no idea about how the costing for the remuneration is arrived at:
 
"Following a recruitment process, overseen by the Appointments Commission, a Chairman has been selected. With the Department's support, the Chair is in the process of appointing 3 non-executive members to the Board, again in a process overseen by the Appointments Commission. During the recruitment process it has become clear that the time commitment required of the non-executive Board members will be greater than originally anticipated. Therefore, in order to attract the appropriate calibre of Board member with the skills and expertise for these critical roles, some level of remuneration will be required. Economic Development has therefore reviewed the policy within the agreed Operational Terms of Reference and concluded that the non-executive Board members should be remunerated. Such remuneration will be in the form of an annual fixed sum awarded on an honorarium basis."
 
We don't even know how many times the board will meet, how much time will be demanded of its members, or how the level of remuneration was calculated. We are told, however, later in the document, that there will be "an estimated 10 applications a year". And for this, and for the total number of unspecified meetings and unspecified hours, the 4 non-executive members will receive a total of £50,000 per annum. That's not a huge amount for each one - £12,500 per year for each of the four, but we have absolutely no idea how much that works out at per hour, because no figures have been given. It could be very high indeed, or relatively low.
 
If I was in the States, I'd want more information before voting that through, and quite frankly, I'd be rather appalled at the way a proposition could be brought without any indication of how the costs were arrived at. When I did mathematics problems, we were always taught to show all the workings out, and you always knew the students who were cheating, because they just provided an answer and no workings out. This proposition is like that; it is a bit of a cheat!
 
Public Elections
 
The proposals for changes to public elections are very positive, and I particularly like the idea of streaming hustings, and the consideration of electronic means of voting. I'll return to those in a later posting, but one thing I do want to take issue with is this:
 
"Mr. Adrian Lee had stated that what was observable was the relative completeness and accuracy of the Electoral Register in Jersey. The Jurats had confirmed that in their opinion the registers were accurate in 2011."
 
In fact, the registry, as far as I have been able to ascertain, was held on separate spreadsheets and not on a single database. As a result, there were errors in the registry. In St Brelade, for example, 13 voters appeared in voting lists of both districts, and of those, 4 were placed at exactly the same address but with different voting numbers! The Greffier was made aware of this, but by that time, the voting lists had been published.
 
Had the Jurats asked the Greffier, they would have been informed that the registers were not 100% accurate in 2011. It would be interesting to know on what basis they made their confirmation. The errors were small, and "relative completeness and accuracy" suggested by Mr Lee is probably a good description, and certainly closer to the truth.
 
Public Elections: Single Transferable Voting System (STV) and an Alternative Voting System (AV).
 
What is interesting here is the comment by the Comité des Connétables on the proposition. Looking at STV and AV, they comment that the States members should be aware that "the results of an election using such voting systems are unlikely to be available on the polling day as has been the case with elections in Jersey to date."
 
It is also suggested that the extra demands on Parish staff and volunteers for STV would be very great:
 
"Polling stations are open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. and Parish staff and volunteers are already committed to a very long day to ensure an election runs smoothly."
 
We can see an argument  - which is not wholly explicit - that the duration and demands on time should be a main consideration for rejecting the proposals. They don't come out with that explicitly, but reading between the lines, that is what the thrust of their comments are pointing towards. What they fail to address is whether such a voting system would be fairer than first past the post, and hence engage with the electorate more fully.
 
When it comes to the Alternative Voting system used in the Referendum, the Committee is in a quandary. It could, after all, easily apply to all the Constables seats, so there is a degree of self-interest. But what we know from the Referendum is that it can be done, it can be done quicker than we suspected, and it can be done in one evening.
 
They have this to say:
 
"The Alternative Voting system is, in effect, that used for the recent referendum on the Reform of the States Assembly. It might be possible for such a count to be concluded on the polling day, but this would depend upon the turnout, the number of candidates and whether a recount or recounts were required."
 
As there has scarce been a massive amount of contested Constables elections, and none that I can recall within living memory of three candidates, I think this is special pleading. Even if STV is not adopted elsewhere, there is no reason at all why the Constables elections should not use AV. The likelihood of its use would be marginal in the extreme.
 
Reading all these comments, I find it is rather like considering the difference between a diet of convenience junk food, which is very easy to prepare in a microwave oven, and costs a lot less in time and effort, and a  meal from fresh ingredients bought, prepared and cooked. One may well be simpler, but in terms of nutrition, it would be a poorer choice. The comments here look just at the cooking time and convenience, and nutrition seems to have been overlooked. It is easy to get addicted to junk food, and it does provide some small nutrition. But surely the public deserve better from the States?

Rose Tinted Spectacles

There are bad times just around the corner
There are dark clouds hurtling through the sky
And it's no good whining
About a silver lining
For we know from experience they won't roll by
With a scowl and a frown we'll keep our peckers down
And prepare for depression and doom and dread
We're going to unpack our troubles from our old kit bag
And wait until we drop down dead
(Noel Coward)

Where do politicians buy their rose tinted glasses from? The world that they view seems very different from the somewhat gloomier one that the rest of us inhabit. A case in point is the report just out on economic performance of the Island. The BBC reports that:

"The 2012 figures, published earlier, show economic activity decreased for the fifth year in a row. Finance was still the main contributor to the measure of Gross Value Added (40.2%) but even this sector had shrunk by almost a third since 2008. The report from the States' statistics unit showed the "real terms" measure of GVA (allowing for the underlying rate of inflation) decreased by 4% to £2.78bn during 2012..Each separately-listed sector saw a drop, apart from hotels, restaurants and bars, which rose by 3%." (1)

Alan Maclean, however, is putting his own spin on this rather gloomy news. It is the 2012 figures, and he says that doesn't take into account the fact that this year matters have improved. He dismisses the figures as historical. A year is a long time in politics, to coin a phase. And he talked up on BBC Radio Jersey how the figures were better for tourism, so it is not all bad!

"Senator Alan MacLean, the economic development minister, said the outlook for 2013 looked more positive and that recovery was imminent." (1)

As my correspondent Adam Gardiner says: "certain sectors are showing some recovery, but it's the total economy we should ALWAYS focus upon."

Jersey Finance is also talking up the economy:

"Responding to the figures, Jersey Finance said: "It must be remembered that Jersey has fared better than almost all developed economies in terms of government borrowing (Jersey has no net debt) and employment levels (which remain far higher across all sectors than in the UK and many other G8 nations)." (2)

Only commentator John Boothman seems to give a realistic appraisal of the situation:

"Most of us were looking to see either a small improvement or a small decline but a decline on this scale, coming on top of several years of decline, is very disappointing indeed and it seems to be widely spread around the economy" (1)

Adam Gardiner, who corresponds with me, thinks that there is simply too much spin, when the decline in the economy is painfully obvious. He writes:

"You would think from the way Philip Ozouf and @Ringbinder (on twitter) have been talking over the last few months, the Jersey economy was 'well on track, 'beating the recession', 'showing signs of recovery' etc etc."

"And now we know the truth - not that we already didn't, Jersey not only still firmly in the doldrums but the little breeze we can feel is blowing us in the wrong direction. I am no economist or financial pundit, but I do have a sixth sense and its telling me that the island has a long, long way yet to go before it can genuinely claim to be 'on the road to recovery'."

"We have the retail sector in quite obvious trouble with shops closing almost daily. CI Bakery baked their last loaf only 5 days ago and we have recently lost the second largest shipping company serving the islands. That in addition to the dozens of business failures and job losses in parts of the finance sector of the last 18 months - yet all the time the civil service grows and grows and grows."

I also think there has been a knock on "domino effect" that we are still facing from the loss of Low Value Consignment Relief. The LVCR industry led to a considerable expansion of business before the recession and the removal of that caused major fallout, which we are still seeing today with postal and freight services.

But it is not just the prerogative of Jersey politicians and their supporters to talk up the economy, the same happens in the UK.

As the Huffington Post reports on the latest survey:

"Town centre shops closed at a rate of 18 a day over the first half of the year, despite signs of improvement in the wider economy, research has shown. The rate fell from more than 20 during the same period last year, but it was charity stores, betting shops and cheque cashing outlets that picked up the slack. This comes after research earlier this month found that the number of empty shops on British high streets has stayed roughly the same over the last year." (3)

"Betting shops, coffee outlets and supermarket branches were increasing on British high streets, according to the research. This comes as Chancellor George Osborne welcomed the fact last week that the economy was "turning a corner" and "looking better"" (3)

And if we try to compare like for like, the situation in Jersey does not improve. Adam Gardiner has provided me with the following rough calculation, which is certainly on the right lines (although the UK figures are only for high street outlets):

"18 closures a day in the UK, but given its geographical size and population suggests to me we are faring rather badly in comparison. As I understand Jersey has lost circa around 12 companies in last 12 months (i.e.: one per month) in a support population of 100,000. That extrapolates to the UK with a population of circa 50 million to something in the order of over 50,000 business failures last year. But 18 x 365 = 6,570 not 50,000!"

And he concludes: "We have to face it, Jersey has some serious problems. If only our politicians would admit that!"

At least Noel Coward got it right:

There are bad times just around the corner
The horizon is gloomy as can be
There are black birds over
The greyish cliffs of Dover
And the rats are preparing to leave the BBC
We're unhappy breed and very bored indeed
When reminded of something that Nelson said
While the press and the politicians nag, nag, nag
We'll wait until we drop down dead

Links
(1)   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-24240418
(2)   http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline_jerseynews/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=507356
(3)   http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/24/town-centre-shops_n_3975554.html

Flying off the Handle

Apparently the funding for the air display from Economic Development has been slashed over the last few years. This is in line with the policy of Senator Alan Maclean, who was threatening cuts back in 2010:

"The financial squeeze in Jersey is likely to mean hard times for events like the Battle of Flowers and the Battle of Britain Air Display. States funding is drying up and Economic Development Minister Alan Maclean says both events should aim to become more commercial - like Jersey Live or the Branchage Film Festival. Neither of those events require States funding." (1)

And the report goes on to mention these forthcoming cuts (in 2010):

"Senator Maclean recently announced that they plan to cut the funding of events like the Battle of Flowers by £138,000 a year. The Chairman of Jersey's Battle of Flowers says the idea of making the event more commercial to cover its costs is easier said than done."

"Cutting the grants would also affect the Air Display, which claims to attract the most tourists and gets a grant of about £100,000." (1)

It is ironic because Senator Maclean had beaten Deputy Mike Higgins in 2008:

"Senator Alan Maclean has been voted as the island's next Economic Development Minister. He beat political new-comer, and organiser of the Jersey International Air Display Deputy Mike Higgins in the States members vote." (2)

Senator Maclean is also the Minister responsible for appointing a full-time representative in China. Apparently, the position in Beijing would cost about £60,000 a year. He's also visited Jerusalem and Tel Aviv on Monday 4 and Tuesday 5 March 2013 to meet senior Israeli Government officials and leading finance and business representatives. He has recently appointed Mr Tim Herbert as chairman of the board that will oversee the Jersey Innovation Fund. The creation of the £5 million fund "is an important element of the States of Jersey's strategy to deliver growth and diversification in the local economy by supporting investment into original projects and business ideas and improving Jersey's international competiveness."

Incidentally, neither the proposition in the States, nor the Ministerial decisions regarding a Chairman that I've looked at seem to mention Mr Herbert's remuneration; as they don't state it is an honorary position, I would imagine that, like the Shadow Tourism Board Chairman, John Henwood, there would be some remuneration, but by some strange oversight it seems to be missing from all the documents relating to its foundation. Even the formal application for a Chairman to apply fails to mention this. Perhaps the good Senator would care to rectify that, especially if it is buried in the minutiae of Ministerial decisions.

Now I'm not criticising the Senator for supporting the finance sector, or the local economy, but he seems to have taken a back seat when it comes to tourism, which apparently needs less and less support from the States. Balancing the budget is a tricky task, but hitting tourism seems to have been a soft option for the Minister's budget.

I've been waiting for any announcement regarding funding for the Air Display, and the shameful record of the Minister's department in cutting grants, but reading his Twitter feed @AlanMacleanJsy, you would be hard pressed to know that an Air Display had taken place. A major tourism event, and he can tweet off around Tim Herbert, but has nothing to remark upon the Air Display at all! It's another example of the Ministerial bias towards Finance and away from Tourism.

Senator Philip Ozouf, who does not have the remit for tourism, manages a tweet on the Air Display that it is raising money for a good cause.

Brendan Brady, writing in the JEP, says:

"There are only two really great events in Jersey, the Battle of Flowers and the Battle of Britain Air Display. Both events attract the largest crowds and visitors from all over the world. Both events should without doubt receive total and absolute support from our government."

"The taxpayer cost for the recent referendum on the vote for an 'A', 'B' or 'C' government was nothing but a joke as we all knew the answer before it started, but £196,000 was wasted there. The £200,000 spent on a possible film that may never happen, is another waste of public money."

"I am sorry but it just goes on and on. Yet our government chooses not to fully support two events in Jersey that actually make this Island stand out in the world by showing what we can do." (4)

Helier Clement comments that:

"Mike Higgins seems to me to have made a damn fine job of organising the event in recent times - I've certainly heard nothing to the contrary - but effectively mortgaging his home in order to guarantee an air display is way above what anyone should reasonably expect from him or anyone else. Has no one learned any lessons at all from the fireworks display that never was?" (5)

Next year seems on surer footing. Mike Higgins had to raise a loan with his house as surety to make good the costs of this year's display, but as the BBC reports:

"Robert Gaines-Cooper, one of the show's main sponsors, paid off the loan. The multimillionaire, who lives in the Seychelles, did his national service in the RAF and has supported the display for 17 years. Mr Higgins said: "Without his money we would never have had an air display for as long as we have and as good as we've got." He said Mr Gaines-Cooper had paid off the loan and pledged additional funding for next year's event." (6)

So this essentially lets Senator Maclean off the hook. But when elections come round next year, just after the 2014 Air Display, let's not forget how he failed to come up with any extra support, despite his Department authorising £200,000 for a movie that may never see the light of day.

And John Henwood, who was appointed Shadow Tourism Board Chairman, back in February 2013, also is conspicuous by his silence. All we had from him at the Institute of Directors lunch on "Tourism and the Economy" seem to have been vague platitudes:

"'Public sentiment leads political direction and it is important that we look at tourism afresh and realise that, though she may not possess that first flush of youth that we fell for all those years ago, she is still very attractive and can do things for us that others can't.'"

People have complained, sometimes with justification, that Deputy Rob Duhamel seems to have a bias more towards environmental matters than planning ones. They should also note that Senator MacLean also has a strong bias towards Finance rather than Tourism.

In the old days when there were separate committees for tourism and business development, there was more of a balance, but now, under Ministerial government, a lot depends on the personal preferences of the Minister in charge, with no circle of Committee members to ensure the balance. But the different departments were all placed under one umbrella, with the maxim "joined up government", and the fanciful notion that somehow things would simply "gell".

It's one of the weaknesses of Ministerial government which I was discussing with Enid Quénault recently, and it will be interesting to see if the review of the machinery of government manages to address this issue.


Links(1)   http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline_jerseynews/displayarticle.asp?commentstatus=abuse&id=489576&commentid=41433
(2)   http://www.bbc.co.uk/jersey/content/articles/2008/12/11/ministries_economicdevelopment_feature.shtml
(3)   http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyPropositions/2012/P.124-2012.pdf
(4)   http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/comment/2013/09/16/give-the-air-display-full-financial-backing/
(5)   http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/comment/2013/09/16/this-show-lights-up-my-life-%E2%80%93-but-it-comes-at-a-high-price/
(6)   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-24070677
(7)   http://www.thisisjersey.com/business/2013/09/12/the-island-is-urged-to-rekindle-its-love-affair-with-tourism/

Fishing for Co-Operation

We often hear it said that Guernsey and Jersey should pool their resources, and work closely together. Certainly, in the fiscal sphere, Philip Ozouf tells us on his website that "I am working closely with my colleagues in Guernsey".

In 2009, as Economic Development Minister - that is only two years ago - Senator Ozouf went over to look at areas in in which Guernsey and Jersey could better cooperate have been identified, and talked to Guernsey's Treasury minister Charles Parkinson; they committed the Islands to greater cooperation. Here are a few quotations from Senator Ozouf:

"Times have changed - we have a real drive and determination to work together, to be much more rigorous and detailed and dedicate time and resources to move the cooperation agenda forward, with the objective of efficiency and savings for both islands."

"Competition helps in some fields but that doesn't mean we can't be very cooperative and friendly and share information about better ways of doing things."

"I am not going to tell Guernsey how to run its affairs at all, but I will talk about how we can run things together" (1)

But I wonder exactly how well we have since "run things together"? How close Senator Ozouf worked that is? Unknown to the Treasury Minister, or even the Economic Development Minister, Alan Maclean, Guernsey was unilaterally negotiating its own position for fishing rights, regardless of the fact that this would seriously damage the livelihood of Jersey fishermen, who have fished in those waters for many years unimpeded, and who would now have to apply for licences, with the very real chance of those being rejected.

At the moment there is a three-mile protection limit around Guernsey, but the island has agreed a deal with the UK to extend it to 12 miles. Don Thompson, Jersey Fishermen's Association president, said it was "an erosion of the rights of fishermen". He said: "They have been fishing there legitimately for decades." Mr Thompson added: "It is not as if we should be on our hands and knees begging for the right to carry on doing something we have been doing legitimately for decades and decades.".. The agreement licenses UK fishing boats to operate within the three to 12 nautical mile zone around the bailiwick. Dougal Lane, president of the Guernsey Fishermen's Association, described the move as a "very good deal". He said local fishermen had been kept informed by the States throughout the negotiations. (2)

The news report tells us that local fishermen "had been kept informed by the States". Perhaps Senator Ozouf or Senator Maclean could ask the States of Guernsey why they neglected to tell the States of Jersey, who were not kept informed. How are we to have co-operation between the Islands if these kinds of issues are not resolved?

The situation at the moment is that "positive talks" are now going on, which Alan Maclean says are "a step in the right direction", even though he is in fact not attending the meetings!

Senator Maclean who, like Mr Thompson, did not attend the meetings, said: 'My understanding is that they were positive discussions. This is the beginning of the process and there are many more discussions to be had, but both sides are working towards a sensible solution that suits both parties.' (3)

Let us hope that a sensible solution is found, and that the discussions don't break down, but perhaps mechanisms could be put in place to ensure that this kind of event doesn't happen again. Otherwise, all the trips across to Guernsey, the good photo-opportunities, the cheerful sound-bites making it sound as if the Islands are co-operating, are just hot air.

And in the meantime, another story says that "The Channel Islands competition watchdog is looking for more ways for Jersey and Guernsey to work together."

The Channel Islands Competition Regulatory Authority wants to address issues in both islands at the same time to make sure people get a fair deal. Executive Director John Curran said some issues will be different in the two islands. But he added he wanted both offices to work together to promote value, choice and quality in goods and services. He said: "Reducing our costs further, sharing our resources where possible and engaging in joint working are all integral in fulfilling our mission." (4)

Fishing might be seen as a competition problem between Jersey and Guernsey, where a little bit of sharing resources and "engaging in joint working" might be useful. If the Channel Island really want to work together, perhaps the competition watchdog should broaden its scope to look at a situation which could well mean that Jersey fishermen do not "get a fair deal".

It is ironic that " looking for more ways for Jersey and Guernsey to work together" has come up at the same time as a story which shows that there is at least one way for Jersey and Guernsey to work together, and that is to develop a joint fisheries policy. At the moment, the plight of the fishermen highlights a significant lack of communication in areas outside the finance industry.

And so for the moment, the fishermen are left with "positive talks", by Senator Maclean, who is not, we are told, attending the meetings. Perhaps he should take note of what Senator Ozouf said in 2009 about closer co-operation between the Islands:

"Talk has been cheap and now we need to roll our sleeves up."

Links
(1) http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2009/04/24/economy-leads-two-ci-rivals-to-join-forces
(2) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-15430882
(3) http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/2011/10/24/guernsey-fishing-limit-talks-a-step-in-right-direction/
(4) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-15434659

A Hall of Shame

I am extremely disappointed in the failure of the exemption on domestic energy, especially as I noted one Assistant Minister voted against the exemption, despite having mentioned in conversation to me personally that he could see a case for that, and might be in favour, because with just one supply of electricity, there would be no complications, or manpower considerations.

Will the tax thresholds - as last time - be adjusted to allow for the massive increase in JEC costs this year, or are the measures proposed to adjust tax thresholds last year just a "one off" which has been mostly wiped out by the staggering rise in the price of electricity? That was always the
weakness of the position advocated by John Le Fondre, that rising costs could wipe out any short term amelioration given by this strategy.

Here are a few more disappointing politicians:

Paul Routier:
JEP 31.03.08 record of election pledge: vote for exemptions
Actual result: voted against

Len Norman, Constable of St Clement
JEP 31.03.08 record of election pledge: vote for exemptions
Actual result: voted against

Well done to newcomer Ian Le Marquand for keeping his promise, despite being on the Council of Ministers; also to newcomer Deputies Higgins, Green, Rondel, Tadier, Wimberley and Dupre.

Whether for or against GST exemptions, I respect those with other convictions such as Sean Power or Ian Gorst.

What is less worthy of respect are election promises made and clearly broken - or in the case of Alan Maclean - as the JEP noted - a vaguely conditional form of words which tried to please everyone, but promised nothing in detail. He wins the Jim Hacker Award!

Senator Alan Maclean nominated for Yes Minister Award

Alan Maclean recently showed his prowess as a  master of "Yes Minister" style prevarication. He has lost none of the assured professionalism demonstrated by Estate Agents in providing clever obscufaction. In answer to a question by Deputy Phil Rondel, about defects at the Marina, Maclean comes out with "seek clarification as to what they relate to in the context of the ongoing discussions".

Now if you google "Sir Humphrey Appleby ongoing discussions", you come up with "Yes Minister", and this is a perfect example of a sentence where Senator Maclean is on the edge of comprehension, on the point of heading off into the Twilight Zone of sheer nonsense.

When pressed more firmly about actual assurances  - "Will he give us an assurance that within the next 28 days they will be addressed?", he is happy to give "an assurance that within the next 28 days they will be considered" - note "considered", not "addressed".

Alan Maclean is fast becoming a strong contender for the Yes Minister Award for the Arcane Art of Saying Nothing in Many Vague Words.

Here is the exchange reported in the States of Jersey "Hansard":

4.1     The Deputy of St. John:
If I could pass this across, please, to the Minister.  In December 2007, I along with others were at St. Helier Yacht Club and put a number of questions to the Minister on maintenance of St. Helier marina.  He gave me an undertaking that he would look into this.  On a number of occasions during 2008, I wrote to the Minister and asked what progress had been made.  As Members can see, I will pass a couple of these around . in fact these photographs were taken, Minister, this week.  Could the Minister please explain why the serious defects are still in the public domain, and are a danger to the public, and why they have not been put right?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):
I would ask the Deputy who has written to the department - has written to me and I have referred it to the department to deal with - I understand he has had numerous discussions with the department and meetings.  My understanding is that most of the issues that were raised - I think in the first letter the Deputy wrote there was something like 28 particular issues raised on matters pertaining the harbours - have been addressed in full.  As far as the photographs are concerned, I am more than happy to take them down to the department and seek clarification as to what they relate to in the context of the ongoing discussions that the Deputy has had over the past 2 years.

4.1.1  The Deputy of St. John:
A supplementary.  If I could pass the Minister a copy of my original letter, he will see of those 20 plus faults reported a number of them, even on the front page which are underlined in a highlighter, have not been addressed.  Will he give us an assurance that within the next 28 days they will be addressed?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:
I am more than happy to give the Deputy an assurance that within the next 28 days they will be considered.  As far as I am aware, these issues had been resolved and I have asked the Deputy personally as to whether there are any outstanding issues to which he did not give me an answer until this precise moment.  Thank you.

Cleaning Up His Manifesto

Taxation: GST - We must ensure the less well of (sic) are protected. They are the most affected from this new tax and we must ensure that the proposed low-income support scheme provides the desired protection. Medicines and medical services should be exempt as well as children's clothing. We must ensure that the 3% rate is maintained as a maximum.

http://www.alanmaclean.je/section/7/

Yes, Alan Maclean has actually seen fit to repeat this from his last manifesto - regular readers will know I saw this on his Deputy website before the recent facelift.

It is good to know he does not try to conceal what he put then, although you would be hard pressed to know that on the two votes on children's clothing, he consistently voted against the exemption. The voting record is missing. The voting tab just tells you where to vote.

The section "Track Record" does not mention this, just as usual the posts he has held. And how he has done so much single handed at the Airport. You'd never believe that Jersey had an Airport Director who did anything!

The new 2008 version does not mention the GST exemption for children's clothing. It is now off his political radar.

If we take his posters as questions, here are some of mine:

Honesty - Is it honest to say you support exemptions on children's clothing, and vote against those exemptions?
Integrity - Is it a sign of integrity (whatever that vacuous word means) to say one thing, and do another?
Ability - What do we call the ability to promise one thing, and break a promise.

The success in attracting 'low cost' airlines and developing new air and sea routes has helped increase visitor numbers.

http://www.alanmaclean.je/section/4/

One has to admire his cheek when airlines are fast cutting Channel Island routes for the winter, and HD Ferries has ceased to operate!

On the "About Me" page there is a section marked "Blog extracts". It is blank, but he can put this extract from my blog in for free if he wants to.

 

Alan Maclean - The Deputy's Mandate

http://www.alanmaclean.co.uk/

I found his site, and curiously, it still says "Please vote me in for DEPUTY ST HELIER DISTRICT NO 2".

That's interesting, because it means we have a benchmark to judge what he says now by what he promised 3 years ago - at least until he amends it. Here are a few of them, with a note of how effective he has been:

I was one of the organisers of the Black Tuesday silent protest in Royal Square that rallied some 2,000 people. The protest was organised to help persuade states members to focus on cutting wasteful states spending before increasing tax.

Taxes up - so not much success there, and see how this expands in detail below.

My principal aims, if elected, are to ensure that the 20% means 20% tax proposals are cancelled.

20 means 20 is still with us, I'm afraid. I'll return to that in more detail.

A responsible government should have a clear policy on the environment including incentives, such as tax breaks, to encourage us all to be environmentally aware.

No sign of those tax breaks yet, either. Not a single private members bill taken to the States on that account!

Government Reform: The Clothier report did not properly address Jersey's unique democratic style of government. I believe that the Deputy's mandate is not democratic and that any politician representing the Island should be elected with an Island wide mandate. There are too many States Members but the Clothier proposal to reduce the number to the low forties does not go far enough. Fewer politicians with appropriate pay to reflect their role, success and hours worked (full or part time) would ensure the best possible quality of candidate to represent the Island. I do support the Constable's role in the assembly.

This was a muddle then - any politician representing the Island should be elected with an Island wide mandate - so no Deputies. I understand the logic of that, but then he says, "I do support the Constable's role in the assembly." which completely contradicts that - they have a Parish wide mandate.

Not seen much progress on the Island wide mandate stuff either. On 26 September 2007, 2007 P98/2007/ - Deputies - extension of term of office to 4 years P98/2007, he was quite happy to vote in favour of this and retain the status quo.

The Economy: We need a strong and diverse economy in order to maintain and improve our standard of living. In recent times we have come to rely too much upon the finance industry.

Parish Rates: The level of rates are too high in St Helier although steps are being taken to address this situation with a division between residential and commercial assessments. The burden needs to be shared more evenly and one way in which this could be done is for the States to pay rates on their buildings. The fact that rates are not paid on most States buildings despite the fact that they still benefit from the same parish services also distorts the real cost of government and deprives the parishes of much needed funds.

A Simon Crowcroft supporter then?

GST - We must ensure the less well of are protected. They are the most affected from this new tax and we must ensure that the proposed low-income support scheme provides the desired protection. Medicines and medical services should be exempt as well as children's clothing. We must ensure that the 3% rate is maintained as a maximum.

Ahem, ahem - children's clothing exemption. Don't remember much speaking out for that. But when it comes to voting!

25 October 2006 P86/2006/ Goods and Services Tax - exempt or zero-rated items - paragraph (g) children's clothing - voted against! When it came up again on 10 September 2008 (P103/2008/Amd (2)) which would have made school uniforms exempt only, he voted against exempting school uniforms. A man of consistency, but not one which tallies with his election promises!

20% means 20% - I support the fact that this has been delayed for twelve months in the recent budget proposals and would fight for an indefinite delay until the success of other cost saving measures have been assessed. In particular I want to see further savings made by the states before anymore tax rises are agreed. Cutting spending does not mean cutting jobs, there are many in-efficiencies where significant savings can be achieved. Greater independent scrutiny of all states expenditure is required. If this is done properly I do not believe that there will be any need for the 20 means 20 proposal.

Sorry, Alan, you didn't manage the "indefinite delay" after all. In fact, you were not even present when the debate took place.

18 July 2006 P58/2006/ Income Tax allowances, reliefs and exemption thresholds ("20 means 20")- reference back NOT PRESENT
18 July 2006 P58/2006/ Income Tax allowances, reliefs and exemption thresholds ("20 means 20")
NOT PRESENT

There is a problem with serious vandalism and anti-social behaviour from a minority of young people. This causes a great deal of distress to the elderly who feel at times like 'prisoners' in their own homes. One way to redirect the destructive energies of the young is into organised recreational activities and facilities within the parish.

Voting record - Waterfront Skateboard and Youth and Community Centre, 27 February 2008. Proposition P8/2008/Re-Issue. Alan's Vote - Contre - against.

The Millennium Town Park: The Town Park was an agreed States Millennium project in 2000. Since that time progress has stalled. I strongly believe that The Town Park should be a dream that is now realised as a much needed regeneration project for St Helier No 2.

Still dreaming......