The Council of Minister’s Policy Forum

I've reprinted below Ben Shenton's pre-Christmas comments on the newly formed "Jersey Policy Forum", as I think they deserve a more permanent airing than the pages of the JEP.

The so-called "Jersey policy forum" seems to be "The Council of Minister’s Policy Forum" by any other name. It states that:

"All research published by the Jersey Policy Forum must be independent, objective, evidence-based and soundly argued. A research committee will ensure that relevant experts appropriately reference facts and sources through peer review and scrutiny."

However, listening to Mark Boleat, who founded the forum, at a Chamber Lunch just before Christmas it was apparent that scrutiny mentioned above did not mean Scrutiny, as for example, John Le Fondre's panel looking at the economic viability of the Jersey International Finance Centre. For "peer review", then, read, a review by like minded people, in which a real critical voice is not heard.

For example, I gather that Sarah Ferguson is not the kind of member they want, nor, I imagine, Ben Shenton or John Young, or for that matter John le Fondre. What remains is a cosy club.

Mr Boleat's own paper - the only one available so far - shows signs of his own pet hobby-horse, immigration - "Even in the City of London today the British Government’s attempts to restrict net immigration are being held to be detrimental to the ability of the City to maintain its pre-eminent position as the world’s leading financial centre.". No references or data are given for that statement.

And yet in London, commuters can feed in from an ever sprawling suburb, something which he seems to ignore when it comes to Jersey's immigration strategy. And yet he doesn't mention the impact on housing by migration, something taken up by an LSE report on immigration and London - "Their demand increases pressure on the housing market, pushing up prices as compared to other parts of the country and helping to generate movement out of the capital. Increases in house prices reduce the amount of space that Londoners consume, increases problems of access to owner-occupation and puts greater pressure on the rental sectors both private and social." (cf. The Impact of Recent Immigration on the London Economy)

That's something which we see in Jersey, and while he states this - "As a very broad generalisation, small communities, including islands, suffer from depopulation, as young people in particular find greater job opportunities and a more attractive lifestyle in larger communities.", what he doesn't address is that youing people - outside of finance - find few opportunities for home ownership because of the high prices.

What Mark Boleat seems unable to do in his paper is join the dots and make the kinds of correlation between infrastructure, including housing and education, and population. Infrastructure, as I have noted before, is a weakness in his immigration policies for Jersey.

There's also a diversion on rugby, which is one of his hobbies, but has nothing really to do with the subject of his paper. Who on earth peer-reviewed this, and why did they let a private enthusiasm mess up an otherwise fairly formal piece of work?

In fact, it is not stated anywhere who peer reviewed this, and this indulgence spoils the paper - it is certainly not what I would expect to see in "relevant high quality research"; it is more like the asides on American baseball that the late Stephen Jay Gould fitted into some of his popular pieces for Nature. As a result, his paper comes somewhere between an academic piece of work, and a popular essay.

Everyone should feel represented by the States
by Ben Shenton

In one of my comment pieces earlier this year, I revived a concept of 40 years ago, based on a recommendation of the then economic advisor Colin Powell, that Jersey should have a political or Island forum to advice the government on economic and social policy. It should encompass people from all walks of life, especially private enterprise, as policy is often perceived to be by the government for the benefit of the government.

My initial enthusiasm that such a body had indeed been formed soon evaporated when I saw the list of participants, nearly all of whom are remunerated either directly or indirectly by the Jersey government - so no conflicts there then.

I can only assume that the invitation list was mixed up with one for Senator Ozours Christmas drinks party as all of the members would almost certainly be very welcome at his abode.

This train of thought reminded me of a rather amusing incident in 2007. I had been elected as Health Minister a few months before Christmas, but was not the Council of Ministers' chosen candidate. Being the uninvited guest was always going to be an uncomfortable experience and I was pleased to have been invited to a Council of Ministers' Christmas get-together at the Chief Minister's house.

Sadly Frank Walker informed me that the event had been cancelled at the last moment, to be re-arranged for another time. I subsequently found out that the cancellation only applied to me and that the event went ahead in my absence. Under the circumstances they probably had a more enjoyable time without me, especially the Senator - who shall remain nameless - who had been so adamant that I should not attend that he threatened to boycott the event.

When it comes to government everyone should feel that they are represented and a diverse political assembly is necessary to ensure social and economic wealth.

Government needs to listen to the vocal minority, the silent majority, and new media - and not dismiss views and opinions just because we do not agree with them or they are inconvenient truths - such as the States passing the Waterfront plans on the basis that the development would be undertaken by a private developer at no risk to the taxpayer,

With Christmas Day just three days away I'd like to wish a very Merry Christmas to the politicians that have not forgotten why they were elected, to the unionists that represent the well-being of all workers not just the public sector, the pensioners that feel unloved by this government, the families undergoing financial strife, the parents who have to cope in an increasingly difficult world, and all those that love our Island. Happy Christmas.

Links

http://www.jerseypolicyforum.org/

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/23536/1/Gordon_the_Impact_of_Recent_Immigration_On_The_London_Economy_author.pdf

The Fat Public Sector by Ben Shenton

One of the things which seems to be lacking in the States is an organisation chart, giving the relationship of different posts to each other, and a brief description of what each post is for. The States websites provide a "top level" summary, but it is barely a sketch, and certainly not fit for purpose.

And yet - unless we have a breakdown, how can the States see where it is management heavy? How can they see how matters can be streamlined?

The last organisation chart - a very comprehensive and detailed one - was done by former Senator Sarah Ferguson, after she was told that there was not one for the hospital, but she could go in, get data, and do one herself. I think that's pretty atrocious. The States should have their own charts, and keep them up to date.

We hear a lot about "lean" in the States; it is the latest management buzz word. There is no evidence coming from the States that "lean" has produced savings. We are told it is marvellous, but what I'd like to see is not "improvements" detailed in copious project reports, but the bottom line -- claimed savings adding up to a sizeable fraction of total costs.

According to the Mind Tools website, "The Lean approach is based on finding efficiencies and removing wasteful steps that don't add value to the end product. There's no need to reduce quality.. – the cuts are a result of finding better, more efficient ways of accomplishing the same tasks."

Is there a paper trail which documents these efficiences and the removal of wasteful steps so we can actually see improvements made rather than just hearing that they have been?

There's a saying about movies - don't tell, show. It would be nice if the States did a bit more showing, a little less telling.

And in particular, can we have details of what middle management posts there are, and what they actually do, and why they are necessary. There seems to be a lot of pyramid style Empire building. We know what teachers and nurses do. But what do all the fancy named post holders above them do?

I remember Dick Green, who was a nice chap, but in charge of a quango at Education which produced lots of paper, but nothing very concrete. He could not escape the mindset of the pyramid; for him, that was how organisations should be built.

Ian Gorst has said in a number of speeches and replies to questions that States management organisation is stuck in the early 20th century (or perhaps the 19th). Ben Shenton's analysis suggests that not much has changed to improve matters.

Here's Ben Shenton in the JEP, sharply identifying a new management position in Education, and asking what precisely is going on:

Ben Shenton on Public Sector Management

Just how committed are the very well paid management teams in the public sector in achieving the political ambition of cutting costs while maintaining or improving front-line services?

I doubt that any taxpayer begrudges the salaries of dedicated nurses, inspirational teachers or diligent policeman. What they do begrudge is a fat public sector with too many pen-pushers and too many layers of government. Let’s look at the current government vacancies on the States of Jersey website and examine if the notion of running efficient departments while saving money is sinking in.

I’ve picked the role of ‘professional partner to schools’ as the vacancy to review. This is a brand new position with a salary of up to £78,943 per annum; if you add in social security and pension contributions, the taxpayer cost will be in the region of £100,000. It is a permanent role and the five-year residency requirement has been dropped, as seems commonplace in the public sector, so anyone can apply.

The job summary states: ‘Jersey is seeking to recruit an exceptional professional to join our growing school development and evaluation team.’

The use of the word ‘growing’ hardly instils confidence that those in charge at Education have grasped the concept of keeping costs under control.

This is not a cheap role and is not a front-line appointment. The post holder will be a member of the school development and evaluation team and will report to the head of school development and evaluation, who already costs the taxpayers well over £100,000 per annum. The job seems to entail visiting schools ‘to make judgments about effective strategies for school improvement’. Obviously the head teachers and the very well paid head of school development and evaluation are incapable of undertaking this role.

This appointment is not surprising when you see the organisational structure at Education accompanying the job description. For example, the early years administrator reports to the five members of the early years advisory team, who report to the teaching and early years learning adviser, who reports to the head of early years, who reports to the assistant director standards and achievement, who reports to the director for education, sport and culture, who reports to the minister. Not one student-facing person among all these roles; not one member of front-line services.

If the unions want to look after their members, they must stop their ridiculous 1970s strike rhetoric and help to mould a lean and efficient public sector. At the moment it looks like they wish to inflict higher taxes on most of their members to protect fat public-sector management. They need to realise that the public-sector managers use them to protect their own cosy positions. This has to stop.

Ben Shenton in the JEP

I'm reprinting this excellent piece by Ben Shenton from the JEP, also posted by him on Facebook, because it highlights one of the main problems with the States of Jersey Development Company - they have a unique relationship with the States which enables them either to get property at a peppercorn price - the Waterfront - or at significantly below market value - as in the case of the Jersey College for Girls site.

I predict that sooner or later the Treasury Minister will have his beady eyes on the St Saviour's Hospital site - a vast area, worth a considerable sum of money, and where a sale would be ideal for plugging holes in States finances in the short term. With the dollar notes flashing before his eyes, don't imagine the site would ever be used partly for much needed social housing.

But what can we expect of such a large site? I expect the States of Jersey Development Company will get their grubby little fingers in that pie, and as with the Jersey College for Girls, pull out a prize plum, while the States get left with the crust.

Little Lee Henry
Sat in the corner,
Eating a Jersey Development pie;
He put in his thumb,
And pulled out a plum,
And said 'What a good boy am I

JEP Comment - 9th June 2015

by Ben Shenton

Why were public assets worth £5 million sold for £1.5 million?

I am an investment manager and one of the skills required in my profession is to find where the bodies are buried in Company Accounts. This is because no two businesses are identical and there is some flexibility in accounting standards to compensate for this. To illustrate this I recount the tale of a CEO of a very large US conglomerate. When asked what the next quarter’s profit would be by an influential research analyst his reply was “what do you want it to be?”

It is possible to make a subsidiary or department look worse than it is by loading it with costs. Similarly you can inflate profitability if you are so inclined to do so. It can cross the line to fraud if, for example, you have a bonus related culture and deliberately inflate profitability to your own advantage. And so ends this week’s lesson in accounting.

To change the subject slightly, recent events made me dig out some old papers in respect of the old Jersey College for Girls (JCG) site in Rouge Bullion. Back in 2007 a few politicians , including myself and led by Rob Duhamel, prevented the then Treasury Minister – Senator le Sueur – from selling the old JCG property for £1.8 million plus a profit share that was anticipated to increase the value to £3.1million – albeit not without risk.

Roll the clock forward to September 2014 and the States Treasury and Resources Department, via Jersey Property Holdings, received an offer of over £5 million from another local developer for the site. Cash in hand, no risk. As you and I as Islanders own the property this increase in value probably warranted us all going down to our local Co-op and cracking open a bottle of bubbly. Sadly this no risk cash offer was not pursued by the Government who, under Chief Minister’s personal direction, refused to even enter into negotiations.

It was therefore with some dismay that I noted in recent Royal Court property transactions that “The Public of the Island” (as the wording appears on the Court documents) have sold the site to the States of Jersey Development Company for £1,500,000 (6th March 2015). Even the most incompetent developer should be able to book a profit on an asset sold at such a deep discount. But if the SoJDC are really at arms length and on the same playing field as the private sector then why should I, a member of the Jersey public, sell them assets at a £3,500,000 plus discount? How do I ensure that bonuses are not paid to SoJDC staff on the basis of false profitability? And, finally, why are none of our 49 paid politicians asking these questions?

Note: Response from SoJDC:

1. Jersey Property Holdings valued the development site at £1.5 million independently even though it had been valued much higher in 2007 and it was Jersey Property Holdings that were in receipt of the £5 million bid for the site last year.

2. Profits at SoJDC are not linked 'in their entirety' to profitability. In other words the financial advantage of a low transfer value was confirmed.

3. Once completed the project "would return £4 million to the States." This is £1 million less than the amount offered by another developer for the site. That £5 million that would have gone straight towards narrowing the budget deficit.

Comment:

One word - Scandalous!

Can someone please try and get a current politician to look into this. The PAC and CAG should also be concerned.

Three States Members have called for free publicity

THREE States Members have called for an official investigation into whether States police officers were paid by journalists for information during the Haut de la Garenne inquiry. Senator Ben Shenton, Deputy Sean Power and Senator Jim Perchard have written a joint letter to the Attorney General and the police chief calling for action in the wake of revelations and allegations about the News of the World.

It has been alleged that reporters from the Sunday tabloid not only routinely hacked the mobile answer phone messages of celebrities, politicians and the victims of crime and terrorism, but also paid corrupt police officers for information.

The three Island politicians say that they have been concerned since 2008 about the way the investigation was handled and have raised the matter in the States on several occasions. (JEP (1))

Deputy Sean Power, let us not forget came across a printed copy of a long e-mail from Senator Stuart Syvret to another States member. He glanced at it and must have been quite well aware that it was confidential, but it had obviously piqued his interest so much that he disregarded both the States members code of conduct and the Data Protection law. He scanned a copy by e-mail both to himself and to friend. At some point quite soon after this, he realised that he had perhaps acted unwisely and confessed all to the data protection registrar, who not surprisingly was not impressed.

Coincidentally, not long after that, the e-mail, purged of some named individuals, appeared on a blog site which was staunchly critical of Haut de La Garenne, and overstepped the boundaries of acceptable behaviour so much that it was closed down. He may not have directly been the cause of that leak, but once these matters get out by emails, they can easily go viral.

Despite attempts to keep Sean in the Council of Ministers, it appears the threat of a vote of no confidence by the deputy to whom the e-mail was addressed forced him into resigning as housing minister. He apologised to the States, but didn't apologise to the Deputy concerned for distributing her private property. The Data Protection registrar admonished him, but it didn't go further than that - the luck of the Irish held out.

So this is the record of one of the people asking for an investigation into possible leaks! And for someone who may be critical of Lenny Harper's hospitality budget, he might also care to explain his own expenditure of tax payers money of £1,038.53 for travel and entertainment? By way of comparison, the previous Housing Minister clocked up a mere £247.98.

Senator Ben Shenton, on the other hand, appeared to have his own unique way of following what a cynic might term best "News of the World" practice. Quite by accident, as he later said, he recorded a private conversation between himself and the planning Minister, Senator Freddie Cohen. He may well have mused over that when he was working, because it has been noted that he has an extremely poor record of attendance in the States, and, it appears, has adopted the schoolboy trick of being present for the register roll-call and then bunking off. If he is standing again, I hope he gives some assurances that he will improve his attendance, for which he gets over £40,000 a year.

He didn't tell the Planning Minister about this, and sat on the recording for about a year before deciding that he would make it public to a scrutiny panel hearing, which was the first that Senator Freddie Cohen knew about it, as he hadn't had the courtesy to mention this recording before then, or indeed seek his permission to present it to scrutiny. This was the subject of complaints to the Privileges and Procedures Committee. They admonished him for his actions, but it didn't go further than that. Nor did the Data Protection registrar do anything much. So this is the record of somebody asking for investigation into hacking of answerphone messages and underhand practices!

Senator Jim Perchard also has his own unique take on leaks. In a recorded conversation, David Rose, journalist at the Mail on Sunday, admitted that Senator Perchard leaked him a confidential police email that Senator Perchard had been privy too which related to the Haut de La Garenne investigation. As far as I am aware, he has not even been admonished in any way about that.

The Scrutiny Panel investigating the BDO Alto Financial report have noted another leak to the Mail on Sunday, but it is not clear who leaked this, although it has been suggested it was Mick Gradwell, who took over the investigation of historical child abuse enquiry (and who showed what a lack of police professionalism really looks like). What is certain is that it has verbatim quotations of paragraphs which match world for word with a conclusions section of the BDO Alto report, and which they say could not be the case because it wasn't complete. A friend of mine mischievously suggested that perhaps the conclusions were written first before the rest of the report! Of course, the action of Messrs Shenton Perchard and Power is a good way of distracting public gaze from Scrutiny enquiry into this issue.

However Senator Perchard has also had to resign as Health Minister for unbecoming behaviour. On two occasions, once overheard by a BBC reporter, and once in the States chamber, and overheard by other states members, he told Senator Stuart Syvret to slit his wrists and commit suicide using a form of language which certainly would not be termed Parliamentary although it might conceivably have fitted neatly into the mouth of that cranky old fictional bigot, Alf Garnet, from the TV series "Till Death Do Us Part". Obviously he is an ideal person to ask for an investigation into gutter journalism!

Of course, it is an election year this year, and the three politicians had their pictures nicely on the front page of the JEP. But are these really election issues, like GST, increases in means testing and user pays (otherwise known as Stealth taxes) and population control, States spending and a lack of control of Chief officers who seem to be able to set their own extremely generous redundancy packages? Shouldn't the spotlight be on States members own record of service, and how well they have aspired to high office?

Those are real issues, and the kind of grandstanding that is going on with these States members are distractions which garner a certain amount of free publicity but don't tell you anything about what those candidates stand for on the island and parish issues. The headline should read:

THREE States Members have called for a lot of free publicity in an Election year which will distract you from their own shortcomings.

Links
(1) http://www.thisisjersey.com/2011/07/26/call-for-investigation-into-police-links-with-newspaper

Shenton, Newman and the Idea of a University

And now the question is asked me, What is the use of it? (John Henry Newman, The Idea of a University)

Philosophy, like sociology and psychology, is one of those degrees that people do when they're not quite sure what vocation they want to follow. It's a fun-time 4 years, open to stoners, egocentrics and those that love the sound of their own voice, who will finish the course even more confused at what they want to do in life and probably end up working at a convenience store. (Senator Ben Shenton) (1)

While Senator Shenton may have an argument in respect of media studies, and even in respect of sociology and philosophy (although I would dispute that, and return to it later), his knowledge of psychology is abysmal. He seems to assume (and I fear this is a widespread assumption), that it is on the same level as all those self-help guides one finds in such proliferation in the book shops.

Let me correct him with regard to psychology. A psychology course involves detailed knowledge of biology, cognitive neuropsychology, statistics, linguistics, language pathology, cognitive development etc. It's not exactly a medical course, but a psychologist needs a working knowledge of neurology.

A clinical psychologist, for example, would be expected to be able to carry out neuropsychological assessments using a standardised test battery (including research and understanding of the assessment, organising the subtests, scoring, analysing and initial preparation of a formal report) as part of a comprehensive multidisciplinary assessment of clients in the memory clinic. A working knowledge of pharmacology is also needed for any medicinal interventions.

It's worth noting that psychology degrees throughout the United Kingdom are fairly similar in their course content, because the British Psychological Society requires that certain areas must be covered if a degree is to be accredited. So what is typical of one is typical of all - there are no Universities offering an easier option.

Indicative degree structure:
Year 1: Basic psychology, research methods and statistics and key skills.
Year 2: Core areas including research methods and statistics.
Year 3: Empirical project in psychology (not a literature review) and options particular
to a department.

Core areas include:

Cognitive Psychology Perception, attention, learning, memory and language
Psychobiology Basic neurochemistry, neurophysiology of nerve transmission, hormones and behaviour, biological bases of behaviour
Social Psychology Attitudes, attributions, prejudice, social identification, conformity, obedience
Developmental Psychology Perceptual, motor and cognitive development during infancy
Individual Differences Genetic, environmental and cultural influences, psychological testing
Conceptual and Historical Issues Scientific method, social and cultural construction of knowledge, history and
philosophy of science
Research Methods and Statistics Research design, quantitative methods including statistical tests

Some of the statistics involves:

Descriptive Statistics
Samples, populations and the normal distribution.
Making Inferences: Confidence Limits and Statistical Significance
Analysing Data from Repeated Measures Experiments
Analysing data from independent groups: Continuous and Ordinal Measures
Analysing Data from Independent Groups: Categorical Measures
Relationships between Variables: Correlation and Regression
Introducing Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
Analysing questionnaires and measurement instruments
Correcting Spearman correlation for ties.
Exact significance of a correlation in Excel.
Calculating Kendall's Tau-a Correlation
Report writing

There is a worked example here of the chi-square test (which is one of the easier statistical methods), which anyone who still has not been disabused of Senator Shenton's idea may care to look through - "fun time" it is probably not, except to a mathematician (I enjoyed it).

http://www.celiagreen.com/charlesmccreery/statistics/chisquare.pdf

I know at least two people who went for a psychology course thinking it would be some kind of soft soap Freudian, talking shop option - and after quite a shock to the system - the amount of mathematics and neurological information involved is not trivial - they gave up after a few weeks. And nearly all undergraduate degree courses in Psychology are now BSc as opposed to BA, reflecting the scientific weight of the subject. Incidentally, neither of them now work in convenience stores.

I hope this corrects the misleading impression given by Senator Shenton - I am intrigued to know the exact source of his information as it is clearly not trustworthy - as this is clearly not a course for "stoners, egocentrics and those that love the sound of their own voice"! However, to date, he has not seen fit to return my email; perhaps because his opinion on the matter is so easily refuted, or perhaps because he prefers the sound of his own voice to listening to arguments.

But let's now also look at philosophy, which is not itself perhaps capable of practical ends. I would still argue that it is not a "simple" course, and I would challenge Senator Shenton to dispute that with any of the notable philosophers such as Simon Blackburn, Mary Midgeley, Michael Ruse etc. They would certainly eat him alive! One facet of philosophy which is extremely useful is in helping to uncover assumptions and critically examine them, and often people believe something is true (such as the idea that psychology is a pop-science) simply because they have not examined their own assumptions, and don't want to.

Another argument comes with Newman who argued in his seminal work, "The Idea of a University", that "Knowledge is capable of being its own end. Such is the constitution of the human mind, that any kind of knowledge, if it be really such, is its own reward." Against this, Newman saw what we might term the Shenton approach to knowledge, which is nothing new, because he heard it sounded in Cato: "The fit representative of a practical people, Cato estimated every thing by what it produced; whereas the Pursuit of Knowledge promised nothing beyond Knowledge itself. He despised that refinement or enlargement of mind of which he had no experience.".

Newman expands on this in some length, explaining the criticism he is finding on the subject of education, and University Education in particular; and when one considers that he was writing in 1852, it is notable that the same kind of criticism which Senator Shenton is bringing is nothing new.

Now this is what some great men are very slow to allow; they insist that Education should be confined to some particular and narrow end, and should issue in some definite work, which can be weighed and measured. They argue as if every thing, as well as every person, had its price; and that where there has been a great outlay, they have a right to expect a return in kind. This they call making Education and Instruction "useful," and "Utility" becomes their watchword. With a fundamental principle of this nature, they very naturally go on to ask, what there is to show for the expense of a University; what is the real worth in the market of the article called "a Liberal Education," on the supposition that it does not teach us definitely how to advance our manufactures, or to improve our lands, or to better our civil economy; or again, if it does not at once make this man a lawyer, that an engineer, and that a surgeon; or at least if it does not lead to discoveries in chemistry, astronomy, geology, magnetism, and science of every kind.

He find this first stated in Locke, in which we find an enlightenment idea of education. It is interesting that what began as a philosophical argument has now become part of the mainstream thinking, at least as far as University Education is concerned, and even with some people, as far as more general education is concerned.

The author to whom I allude is no other than Locke. That celebrated philosopher has preceded the Edinburgh Reviewers in condemning the ordinary subjects in which boys are instructed at school, on the ground that they are not needed by them in after life; and before quoting what his disciples have said in the present century, I will refer to a few passages of the master. "'Tis matter {159} of astonishment," he says in his work on Education, "that men of quality and parts should suffer themselves to be so far misled by custom and implicit faith. Reason, if consulted with, would advise, that their children's time should be spent in acquiring what might be useful to them, when they come to be men, rather than that their heads should be stuffed with a deal of trash, a great part whereof they usually never do ('tis certain they never need to) think on again as long as they live; and so much of it as does stick by them they are only the worse for."

And we can see this is in the idea of vocational education, which is certainly good, but which is not the whole of education. There have been moves in the past, of varying success, to take those pupils who were deemed not to be capable of academic education, and move them to more vocational education - the 1944 distinction between Secondary Modern Schools and Grammar Schools was one example, although the selection process was wedded to a flawed testing procedure (using so-called IQ tests).

But if we take the principle that utility is the final end of education, why try to make this distinction. Isn't is, as Locke, argues, a waste of time? The question to which anyone wedded to utility in education needs to ask is - why stop at University? What not make the whole of education and the curriculum purely designed for practical ends? For the average school leaver, is it going to damage their career if they cannot solve a differential equation, or determine the cosine of an angle, or be able to determine the ratio of chemical compounds by titration? Most of modern mathematics and science within the school curriculum is evidently not of practical use - should it therefore be discarded?

Now one ground which is argued is that it teaches the ability to work in practical and abstract ways, and that effort can be transferred to other subjects. Someone who applies his or her self to school work may equally be able to apply these disciplines to other professions which are quite remote from that. Newman returns to this with the health of the body - a healthy body, he argues, is capable of many things, so that health is good in itself, in that it prepares the body for many activities. In this respect, he argues, subjects like philosophy and theology sharpen the mind.

Again, as health ought to precede labour of the body, and as a man in health can do what an unhealthy man cannot do, and as of this health the properties are strength, energy, agility, graceful carriage and action, manual dexterity, and endurance of fatigue, so in like manner general culture of mind is the best aid to professional and scientific study, and educated men can do what illiterate cannot; and the man who has learned to think and to reason and to compare and to discriminate and to analyze, who has refined his taste, and formed his judgment, and sharpened his mental vision, will not indeed at once be a lawyer, or a pleader, or an orator, or a statesman, or a physician, or a good landlord, or a man of business, or a soldier, or an engineer, or a chemist, or a geologist, or an antiquarian, but he will be placed in that state of intellect in which he can take up any one of the sciences or callings I have referred to, or any other for which he has a taste or special talent, with an ease, a grace, a versatility, and a success, to which another is a stranger. In this sense then, and as yet I have said but a very few words on a large subject, mental culture is emphatically useful.

And in fact, as a letter in the JEP from Benjamin Smart, notes:

The vast majority of philosophy graduates find graduate jobs within six months of graduation (See the Guardian 20 November 2007); many in the finance sector so crucial to the Island. Why? Because reading philosophy develops an individual's ability to critically analyse arguments, to question assumptions, to formulate clear and developed arguments, and to be careful to analyse even the smallest details in literature. These are qualities essential to success in many careers.

Of course, in the appendix to his proposition, along with the opening remarks on philosophy, Senator Shenton cites all kind of whacky University subjects:

David Beckham studies - Staffordshire University, UK
Doctorate of Philosophy in Ufology - Melbourne University
Surfing Studies - Plymouth/Melbourne
Star Trek - Georgetown University in Washington

- what he fails to take into account, however, is that before any financial support is given to University courses, the applicant must say what course they are going on. He has no evidence of any Jersey students doing any courses like these, because of course there have been none. The Education Department would not provide funding. It is the classic example of the "straw man" fallacy - to present the worse possible scenario, and take it as the norm. Trained in assessing various logical fallacies of all kinds, I suspect most students of philosophy would have spotted it a light year away.

The Philosophy of Utility, you will say, Gentlemen, has at least done its work; and I grant it,-it aimed low, but it has fulfilled its aim. (John Henry Newman, The Idea of a University)

Links
http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/propositions/10960-23063-2482010.pdf
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/idea/index.html

Complaint

"Over recent years I have been increasingly concerned at the growing distrust of some of our politicians."(Ben Shenton, Election profile, JEP)

Below is my text of the complaint I made regarding Senator Ben Shenton's conduct, which I made by email on the 26 March 2010. I have now received (06 April 2010) a letter from the committee informing me that they will be investigating the complaint.

I make in the letter a clear distinction between what I regard as acting dishonestly (as a matter of moral judgement), and acting illegally (which is a matter of law). Just so the distinction is clear, I am using dishonesty in the sense of a lack of probity, perfidiosity or treacherousness, which certainty seems to fit Senator Cohen's reaction to someone he says he supposed was a friend. As Ben Queree noted: "Not telling Senator Cohen that the conversation was being recorded was dishonest, keeping that record for two years was devious at best, doing all this to a colleague who thought he was talking to a friend is just rubbish and breezily passing it all off as his public duty is ridiculous"

I notice with interest that Senator Shenton appears to be mounting a "public interest" defence, asking what he was to do as he had the recording. If that succeeds with PPC and Data Protection, I hope they bear in in mind when considering the case of Senator Stuart Syvret, so that we can have some consistency.


Dear Constable Gallichan

I note that the Standing Orders clearly state -

Elected members should at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of the States of Jersey and shall endeavour, in the course of their public and private conduct, not to act in a manner which would bring the States, or its Members generally, into disrepute.

Elected members should at all times treat other members of the States, officers, and members of the public with respect and courtesy and without malice, notwithstanding the disagreements on issues and policy which are a normal part of the political process.

I wish to make a formal complaint about the conduct of the Senator Shenton who has impugned the reputation of the States Assembly and the Scrutiny panels by his surreptitious use of a phone recordings of Senator Frederick Cohen, contrary to the Data Protection Jersey Law.

I would note that it is generally accepted (e.g. in the UK and EU Member States) that recording or monitoring of calls is only prohibited where some of the contents of the communication - which can be a phone conversation or an e-mail - are made available to a third party, i.e. someone who was neither the caller or sender nor the intended recipient of the original communication. For example, according to Oftel, you do not have to let people know that you intend to record their telephone conversations, provided you are not intending to make the contents of the communication available to a third party. If you are you will need the consent of the person you are recording. In the UK, where organisations do feel it necessary to record or monitor calls - for whatever reasons - the rules under which they do so have been set by the Privacy of Messages condition of the major two telecoms class licences - the Self-Provision (SPL) and Telecommunication Services (TSL) Licences. The most fundamental requirement of this condition has been that every reasonable effort is made to inform all parties to a telephone conversation that it may or will be recorded.

While UK law does not apply in the case of Jersey, I would argue that the code of practice of Data Protection there certainly would apply, as it is simply a gloss on the Data Protection Law, which in basic terms is equivalent to ours. This states that:

Recording (and use of recordings) where X would be able to establish the identity of either party to the call, either directly from the recording or from other information which it is conceivable that X could obtain, would require you to first:

(i) Have informed that party how the recording would be used;
(ii) Obtain consent for the recording to take place (This may be implied from the fact that the customer has been notified and not object, but it is you should obtain explicit consent if the call reveals any information classified as sensitive by the DPA, ie details of race/ethnic background, political opinion, religion, trade union membership, physical/mental health, sexual life, offences committed or legal proceeding bought.)
(iii) The obligations in relation to processing of that data also apply, so that the data must be kept for longer than necessary, under secure conditions and must be accessible to the customer at their request.

I would note that Senator Shenton made a private conversation with Senator Cohen public, and by doing so eroded the confidence in the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of the members of States of Jersey, acting dishonestly (if not also illegally) by not obtaining consent from Senator Frederick Cohen. It is acceptable that Senator Shenton obtained the recording by accident (although without any notification that calls were being recorded!), but his use of it without the consent of Senator Cohen is clearly in breach of this code of practice.

I would therefore like to request that you investigate what seems a clear breach of standing orders.

I have also sent a copy of this email to Emma Martins so that she can investigate any breach of Data Protection in Jersey; clearly, in the UK, this would certainly be the case, and have sent copies to other parties who may be interested in the outcome.

A Cry for Help

A heartbreaking letter in the JEP yesterday. This letter is a cry for help.

It remains to be seen if any of our politicians will comment or look into these kinds of situations. How many young adults are there like this? What contingency plans - if any - are being put in place to help these adults when their parents are not able to cope any longer?

Obviously, politicians can delegate finding the answers to these questions to their civil servants, because after all, that is what the civil service is there for. But how well do the politicians monitor what is being done? And how much personal contact do they make with the families concerned? Do they follow individual cases up, and get reports on them? Is it so beneath them, or are they so busy that they cannot?

I would imagine the particular politicians who would be involved are, in this instance, Ben Shenton, and Jim Perchard, as being involved with Social Services, and Paul Routier regarding any help from the Employment and Social Security side. Paul Routier actually has a handicapped son, although considerably more able than Martin, the young man mentioned in the letter below.

It would be nice if they just made contact with the family concerned. Obviously help has to go through their departments, but we do not elect Senators and Deputies to be aloof rulers sitting like oriental magnates in ivory towers. Politicians should not forget to reach out, forget that it is the individual that matters, and not just the grand design. The grand design - like that of William Beveridge - only comes because someone has listened to many individuals.

Data Protection Note: The Letter is Public Domain, available on the JEP website.

http://www.thisisjersey.com/2008/07/24/what-now-for-my-autistic-son/

From Angela Tuohey.

MY son, Martin, has been a pupil at Mont à l'Abbé School for 15 years. He is leaving this month. Both Martin and the school have undergone many changes in that time since he started at the nursery in 1993.

Before going any further, I want to give heartfelt thanks to the many teachers, school assistants and other professionals who have worked so patiently and tirelessly with Martin over this time, helping our family - he has two younger brothers - through many challenging and difficult patches caused by autism and learning difficulties.

Our family now face the future with some trepidation. Following many meetings and discussions, there may be a small glimmer of hope at the end of the tunnel, although there is still no guarantee of work for our son, as he would need support in the workplace.

There has been much talk of 'tight budgets' and 'limited resources'. Even my requests for Martin to join a youth club - my son is at present non-verbal, i.e. mute - have been rebuffed. However, we have been offered daycare for Martin, for which we are grateful.

To have reached this stage, though, and to have gained help and support for this young man (19 this year) has been an ongoing battle. This, too, at a time when it would normally be possible for parents to have less stress and responsibility bearing down on them after years of caring and coping. A child leaving school should surely be a time of hope and celebration rather than fear and uncertainty.

This is not a plea for sympathy. We love our son dearly and are very proud of his achievements. He has come such a long way from a little boy unable to cope with any change or noise to a young man who wants to explore, learn, try new things. He needs support and help to do this. As his mother, I shall do all I can for him, but time is not on my side.

What happens when parents of disabled youngsters can't cope any more?

Martin and many others have the right to a fair chance. It is not their fault that they are in this situation. There is so much money being spent on roads and development while all these voices go unheard.

The Youth Vote - What the AntiBrigade Said

Draft Public Elections (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 200- P94/2007 - principles 26 September 2007

Draft Public Elections (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 200-


If you are 16 or 17 years old, these are the people who voted against the age coming down last year.

Senator Leonard Norman
Senator Terence John Le Main
Senator Ben Edward Shenton
Senator James Leslie Perchard
Connétable Thomas John du Feu
Connétable John Le Sueur Gallichan
Connétable Geoffrey William Fisher
Connétable Peter Frederick Maurice Hanning
Deputy Jacqueline Jeannette Huet
Deputy Frederick John Hill, B.E.M.
Deputy Collin Hedley Egré
Deputy Guy William John de Faye
Deputy John Alexander Nicholas Le Fondré
Deputy Anne Enid Pryke
Deputy Kevin Charles Lewis

A few choice quotes from Hansard, which shows exactly how some States members regard young people! I've added my comments!

5.1.2 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:
I think I have to say that since this original Law was passed I have had a number of voters and constituency residents from a number of parts of the Island who have all approached me on this issue and said exactly the same thing, unambiguously and unequivocally, that they could not believe that the States had passed this Law to reduce the age to 16. They basically felt that States' members had, and the general quote was, "taken leave of their senses". I have to say that in light of all the responses that I have had I will not be voting in favour of the Appointed Day Act.


But when pressed by Paul le Claire, he would not give numbers at all! Which reminds me of the wonderful cope out - "people are saying..." usually used to justify the speaker's own lack of support. As minister responsible for putting in an order to allow developers to dig up other people's gardens without consent, and who was responsible for £1 million roadwork at Bel Royal and forgot to check with emergency services whether they could get past with his new design, he is a fine one to talk about "taking leave of one's senses".

5.1.5 Senator B.E. Shenton:
I will be brief. I spoke and voted against this originally, the concept of giving children the vote. A lot has been made of the fact that they were asked what they thought and a lot of them said yes. I carried out my own straw poll. I asked a number of 16 year-olds whether they thought they should be allowed to drive and they all said yes. I asked them also whether they thought they should be allowed in pubs and they all said yes. This sort of unscientific way of judging whether this is right or wrong is wrong and I will be voting against it.


By the same token, you could ask adults this kind of question, and thereby I am sure prove that they are unable to judge matters properly as well. Just ask: should income tax be abolished for incomes below £40,000? Or look at the poll against GST. It is in fact Senator Shenton who is being unscientific in his approach and not applying moral principles.

5.1.6 Senator J.L. Perchard:
It is uncanny how often I am agreeing with Senator Shenton these days. Sir, like Senator Shenton and Deputy de Faye, I am still unable to support the lowering of the voting age to 16. I think, and I will ask members to consider, when we deem somebody not old enough at 16 to buy cigarettes or alcohol or drive a car or, more importantly, be held criminally responsible for their actions, how then can we deem them sufficiently adult to vote? I think there is some confusion as to what age an adult is but I certainly will draw the line in the sand in a different place to the good Deputy of Grouville. I think if you are adult enough to buy cigarettes you are probably adult enough to vote and alcohol, et cetera, and I just cannot see that we could possibly seek to lower the age of voting, even at this late stage, Sir.


And yet young people can have sex and marry at 16. An omission to the logic chopping of Senator Perchard. And if old people are restricted from driving (or made to have a re-test every five years after a particular age), does this mean - by Perchard Logic - that they are to lose the vote as well?


5.1.7 Senator T.J. Le Main:
I have to agree completely with the last speaker. In fact, what I would like to say is last year I was invited to address 16 and 17 year-olds at Victoria College on this subject and a vote was taken and it was unanimously voted down. They did not want to vote at the age of 16.

Wow! And if the majority of the public wanted to bring back hanging, and a meeting voted unanimously for it, would the Senator agree with a proposition in the States.


5.1.17 Connétable P.F.M Hanning of St. Saviour:
Like the last speaker, I was not here for this vote and I find it rather difficult. I agree with a lot of what the last speaker has said. We all want to encourage youngsters to vote, to get involved with politics and to generally be interested in the society but I think we have a problem. We are saying: "Yes, you can do that but you are not old enough to make a basic decision about your own health, i.e. you can smoke. You are not old enough or responsible enough to make a basic decision which is to go out and have a drink. You are not responsible enough to do that" but we are saying: "You can vote." Therefore, the impression that this is giving is that this is less important than drinking or smoking. It is trivialising the whole thing.

Another one who seems to have forgotten marrying, sex and the age of consent. Shame!


5.1.18 Senator L. Norman:
Where I part company with Senator Syvret on this issue is that intelligence is not the criterion that should or can or will be used to decide whether someone is able to vote or not. The criteria I think are probably maturity and experience. Children of six, seven, eight, nine, even younger, have got intelligence but surely that is not going to be the criterion by which the right to vote is judged because if that were the case, if you had to take an I.Q. test before you could vote, many children of that age would pass that test but many people of our age, over the age of 18 - yes, we are all over the age of 18 - would not pass that test so would be debarred from voting. It is an absolute nonsense

Given the paucity of logic in this debate, I think it highly likely that a number of members would not be able to vote on the grounds of intelligence. What in heaven's name does Senator Norman mean by "maturity and experience" and how does it effect how people vote? Let me give a counter-example. In his comic one-man stage play, actor Toby Hadoke mentions that when he was acting the part of vicar in Coronation street, he got fan-mail from people asking him - as a vicar - if he was free to come and marry them that summer, and he comments - "And these people have the right to vote!" Are these people - and I'm sure there are some in Jersey over 18 - lacking intelligence (obviously) but somehow blessed with "maturity and experience"?

5.1.21 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:
I have not changed my mind; my original concerns remain. How much have those individuals made their own minds up and how much have they been influenced by their parents and their teachers? What pressure will be brought upon the youngsters to vote one way or another? How worldly wise are they? Wisdom, as we were told by Senator Norman, comes with age. I will not embarrass my Chairman; as a member of the sponsoring Committee I shall abstain from the vote, as opposed to voting against.

An extremely silly argument from the Deputy. Presumably when he goes electioneering, he wants to influence members of the public to vote for him. Does that necessarily mean that they cannot make up their own minds? Surely a false dichotomy. Moreover, people at 18 may still be at school, are they influenced by their teachers? Or if living at home (very likely even at 18), influenced by parents?

Regarding wisdom, there is much truth in the anonymous quote:

Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone

Drains and Dictators

Ben Shenton recently brought a proposition to the States against Guy De Faye's unilateral ministerial decision to allow a developer to dig up people's gardens and lay sewer networks without their consent. The voting pattern revealed some interesting results - perhaps a psychologist might argue a case that it reveals States Members who may have a "Great Dictator" complex?

In the proposition he asked

to request the the Minister for Transport and Technical Services to rescind his Ministerial Decision made on 27th November 2007 in which he agreed to vary the policy on the service of notices under the Drainage (Jersey) Law 2005 and agreed that he would, from the date of the Ministerial Decision, consider serving a Notice on third party landowners for the benefit of private developers to enable those developers to lay sewers across the third party land if there was a demonstrable public gain, namely where a developer was able and willing to fund the connection of other surrounding properties to the public sewer network.

He noted that:

A fundamental issue is whether it can properly be said to be for the public benefit for the Minister to exercise these powers under the Drainage Law in circumstances where the neighbouring landowners are perfectly happy with their current drainage arrangements and those drainage arrangements are perfectly adequate for their current properties. Furthermore, the questions of future maintenance and the States liability to pay compensation following legal claims under the Drainage Law have not been answered.

How would you feel if a Minister passed a Ministerial Decision that allowed a private property developer to lay pipes through your land without your permission?

How would you feel if the Ministerial Decision was structured in such a way that you would receive no payment for going through your land and no compensation for inconvenience caused?

How would you feel if you and your neighbours were not consulted in any way about this and only found out through a third party?

How would you feel if you found out that you had no right of appeal as you only found out about it after the appeal date had passed?

How would you feel if the property developer stood to make a significant sum by obliterating your view and reducing the value of not only your own property, but also that of your neighbours?

Pretty fed up - I would think.

What is interesting is the States Members who agreed with Guy De Faye and opposed the motion. These were as follows:

Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur
Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf
Senator Terence John Le Main
Deputy Robert Charles Duhamel

and of course, the man himself, Deputy Guy William John de Faye.

Given the track record in ignoring the public over GST (Le Sueur) or done his own thing (Ozouf on the Battle of Flowers), or treated the public with disrespect (Le Main over Data Protection), it perhaps is not too surprising. I was rather disappointed to see Deputy Duhamel here though.

there were also a few vacillating members who didn't want to vote definitely one way or the other and who abstained:

Senator Frederick Ellyer Cohen
Deputy Jacqueline Jeannette Huet

So it seems likely that these are the kind of individuals who might like the opportunity for trampling over ordinary people's property rights and would like this sort of precedent, but don't want that to be part of their public record. As the recent Waterfront proposals include a forced compulsory purchase should a seller not be able to agree a satisfactory price (based on what?), it is hardly surprising to see these two suspects here.

Another leak? This isn't a department, it's a colander

Another leak? This isn't a department, it's a colander. - Yes Minister, The Compassionate Society
The ship of state, Bernard, is the only ship that leaks from the top - Yes, Minister, The Bed of Nails

In "Yes Minister", Bernard is worried about leak inquiries. To reassure him, Sir Humphrey Appleby asks Jim Hacker, the Minister, how many leak enquiry reports, in round figures, he had ever seen. The answer, of course, was none - leak enquiries are for setting up - not for reporting.

Listening to Senator Shenton on the leaked emails that had been sent to his Council of Minister colleagues, I was reminded of this, mainly because when pressed by the reporter as to whether there would be an inquiry about the leaked email, he suggested it would be unhelpful at the moment, but might be taken up later. He really seemed to think - as did the reporter - that it might be possible to do something about it.

I really think that watching "Yes Minister" and "Yes Prime Minister" should be compulsory for all States Members, as - also with the Frank Walker and microphone debacle - it would educate them into at least the rudiments of political life, and how to deal with the press, the public, and internal matters, like leaks of emails from colleagues or officials, so that they would be more cautious before sounding off, and the way in which they do so.

Now, of course, the States Members can also make fools of themselves within the States Assembly; take for example, this piece of logic by Senator Ozouf on a 4 year term for Constables:

A 4-year term will not work with a 3-year political cycle. It simply will not work. In 2008 we will have an election for Senators, Constables and Deputies. In 2011, it will be Senators and Deputies. Constables waiting until 2012. 2014 we will have Senators and Deputies, 2016 Constables. How is that going to work with the appointment of Ministers and Scrutineers? How is that going to work with Constables taking a full part in a 3-year cycle? It is just simply nonsense.

Remembering that prior to recent debates, there was no cycle of Constables elections which were in any way "in sync" with any other elections whatsoever, and that Senator Ozouf was quite happy to let that go as the status quo - it was the Constables themselves who sought a single day, and it is clear that this kind of comment is nonsense. If Constables could be elected completely out of synchronisation for decades with the rest of States Members, why can't that continue but with a unitary election day for Constables?

Is it any wonder that John Le Fondre, in the same assembly, said "I will say I am probably slowly losing the will to live"?

Excellent Police Strategy at Haut de La Garenne

I see that an internal (and rather informal and jokey) email sent only to the council of ministers by Ben Shenton has been leaked to the press. At least he had the grace to apologise publically - unlike a certain Chief Minister, whose continual refusal to apologise continues to damage Jersey's reputation, and (for those of us of an older generation) is inconcevable. The sooner he goes, the sooner Jersey has a chance to redeem its reputation, but - as readers of C.P. Snow's "The Affair" would note - some people are so thick-skinned and determined to keep the reigns of power that they never do the honourable thing. But enough of that.

It looks as if Shenton's disapproval of the way the Council of Ministers press conference was "unanimous" without telling him has been damaging, and the knives are out. Hence the leaked email.

The problem is that some serious concerns he raised will now be ignored in preference to the more Sun-Readership issues.

Let's look at one of these.

One question was about the initial press reporting was handled. "Remains of a child" was very ambiguous, and for most of us who heard that police report, it suggested far more that "fragment of a child's skull"; the issue over whether than pre-dates the inquiry was also not made clear at the time.

I imagine that the reason for this was twofold:

a) The police don't want, if they can help it, to release all the information at one time. That way, if a suspect does emerge from the woodwork, they know something that only that suspect also knows, and if they can get him or her to admit that, they are well on the way to building a very credible case. That is true of police work in practice, not just for this inquiry. Admission of "hidden details" is a fundamental strategy; the more that is in the public domain, the more it can be excused by a potential suspect.

b) Lenny Harper undoubtably also wanted to grab a lot of media attention in order to get as large a field of publicity as possible, and spread the net widely. This was so that former residents or staff of Haut De La Garenne, who had left Jersey, and might have pertinent information, would be more likely to come forward. Indeed, some people have come forward from as far as Australia. Also by publicising the numbers of people who had come forward, he hoped to have an escalating effect; as more people came forward, those who had been indimidated by the usual silencing blackmail and threats of the abusers would feel safer speaking out as part of a crowd, and this would snowball. I would say that strategy has been a great success.

I would think that the police strategy has been an extemely good one, and gaining reports from victims before opening the cellar has also led to corroborative evidence coming to light, which again supports the picture what took place there. Once the information about the cellar was public, there is always the danger that a clever lawyer could argue that victims modified stories to take account of that; by taking interviews first, Lenny Harper has avoided that possibility, and can produce a very strong case.

So while Shenton was right to raise these concerns, I think that he should have thought a bit more about why the police adopted the strategy that they did, and even to talk to Lenny Harper directly.