Election Information from Privileges and Procedures: A Clarification

Islanders that are interested in standing for this year's elections can now register their details online.

Candidates need to upload their name, contact details and a photograph to www.vote.je

The website will go live with all the candidates' information on the 1st September 2014. The website gives out information on voting and registering to vote in preparation for the October 2014 elections. It has been set up by the Government's Privileges and Procedures Committee. Chairman, Deputy Jeremy Macon said: "Vote.je is the place where everyone can go to find out about the candidates who are standing for election in their parish or district. "We are giving prospective candidates two weeks to upload their details to the site before publishing their photograph and contact details on 1st September. After the nomination meetings, candidates’ manifestos will also be published on vote.je."
(Channel Television)

I see the actual website vote.je says

"Use this option to upload your contact details, photo and manifesto. Your contact details and photo will be published on this website from Monday 1 September 2014. Manifestos will be published the day after the nomination meetings which take place on Tuesday 16 September 2014 for Senators and Wednesday 17 September 2014 for Deputies and Connétables. You can upload your manifesto at a later date if you wish using Option 2."

The way the Channel TV report (see below) reads suggests - ‘We are giving prospective candidates two weeks to upload their details to the site before publishing their photograph and contact details on 1st September’. It sounds like Privileges and Procedures are forcing potential candidates to make a declaration of standing before they have to or are required to. What is this all about?

In order to find out, I contacted the Chair of PPC, Deputy Jeremy Macon. He explained that the Channel Television report on their website was misleading.

The aim of PPC is to ensure vote.je is a major portal for information on candidates to help voters with their decisions, and also to ensure that a published booklet is delivered to all voters households before pre-polling takes place. That means that if people go to pre-poll their choice, they will have the basic manifesto information about the candidates either Islandwide – as with Senators – or locally – as with Constables and Deputies.

It is, I think, an important consideration. Otherwise, people might pre-poll, and then when they get a leaflet, wish they had voted otherwise. Alternatively, they may defer pre-polling until such time as that information is forthcoming, which would defeat the object of pre-polling.

Because of tight production schedules, this means that candidates and manifestoes will need to be submitted within a 24 hour period after the nomination meetings. As there could be upwards of 100 people’s information involved – after all, this is a general election – this will make matters very tight indeed.

Hence the reason to permit candidates to put forward information in advance. At this stage, they may only have declared, and a complete manifesto is still in the process of being written, but this will enable the Greffier’s department (which is tasked with organising this by PPC) to start getting matters ready.

But for candidates who do not want to either publically declare candidature before (or close to) nomination nights, or who want to reserve the publication of their manifesto until after that date, there is – as Jeremy Macon told me – an alternative route to getting the information to the Greffe.

If you are intending to stand, you can email the Greffe with your name and contact details – email, phone- (so they can confirm you are who you say you are) but tell them this information is to be kept confidential until nomination night.

This will also enable them to supply you with information about the election booklet requirements etc, and any other details that will be useful for making best use of the vote.je website.

Likewise, it is possible to email the Greffier (or his Deputy) with a manifesto but to state that its publication is to be confidential and embargoed until after nomination night. After all, some candidates may not wish others to view their manifesto and steal their ideas prior to nomination!

As most candidates will probably have a manifesto in place before nomination night, this will ensure there is less to process in the 24 hour deadline after the nomination meeting – and the candidate can be sure their manifesto details do not get overlooked.

All this seems eminently sensible to me, but it is a shame the public report as presented by the media is misleading in not also adding the confidential route. Hopefully this (and I have the approval of Jeremy Macon to make this public), will set the record straight.

References
http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline_jerseynews/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=512449

Vote Peter Norman for Procureur

There is a contested election for Procureur in the Parish of St Brelade, with John Trafford standing against the current incumbent Peter Norman. I am sure than John is a very worthy man, but he is an unknown quantity (with only one trustee appointment mentioned on his posters), while Peter Norman has proven his worth with considerable background and skills in financial management to his voluntary service to the Parish as Procureur.

I would therefore urge Parishioners of St Brelade to vote for Peter Norman as the best individual for the office.

But what is a Procureur du bien public? The French translates as "attorney of the public good" and the people elected to the office are the legal and financial representative of a parish in Jersey.

Procureurs are elected for a term of three years. There are two Procureurs for each Parish and their duty is to act as public trustees, maintaining an oversight of Parish finances and represent the Parish along with the Connétable in respect of property transactions of the Parish (if so authorised by a vote of the Parish Assembly).

Some background on Peter Norman.

Peter Norman is the former Chairman of the Board of Directors of Normans  (building supplies) - a post he held for countless years. Normans are by  Jersey standards a very large company which needed stringent financial  oversight, and he proved himself able and capable in that position. He is  an astute businessman, and as part of the Procureur's remit is to keep a watching  eye over Parish finances, he is eminently suitable for the post, and has  already a proven record in that position.

It goes without saying that with his background as a former director of Normans, he clearly knows about balance sheets and running a business, skills that important for someone who is effectively a Trustee of Parish finances; he has considerable business skills and acumen of value to the Parish.

Peter is an individual whose heart and history lies in St. Brelade, and who appreciates that the role of Procureur can be as much knowing about the needs of the community as it is to scrutinise proposed expenditure. He understands the importance to take more than the money itself into consideration when making judgements.

Peter is a born and bred Jerseyman and St. Breladaise. He has involved  himself in Parish affairs for many years. He is a former Roads Inspector  and served on the full Roads Committee. He clearly understands the parish  and municipal procedures. His heart and his life is in St. Brelade

As well as honorary involvement in Parish work, he has served as a Samaritan and as a member of the St. Helier Lifeboat crew. He was also a member of the States Rates Appeal Board from 2006 to 2012, recommended because of his financial background.

Please VOTE PETER NORMAN for PROCUREUR on Wednesday.

Addendum:

I went to Procureurs election at St Brelade, earlier to vote, later to take count and photos of candidates shaking hands. 306 votes cast. No spoilt papers. 263 for Peter Norman. 43 for John Trafford. 4.1% turnout. Voting was eased by the Honorary Police managing a "quick stop" for voters outside the Parish Hall, and being there to guide cars from voters in. A really excellent job well done, especially as it is hard to park at St Aubin. 

Commuter Deputies

While no one seems to suggest, apart from perhaps Nick Le Cornu, that you have to live in a district to represent it, geographical proximity does seem to have been overlooked as significant. If you live in the next Parish, or the next District in the same Parish, you can be pretty close to the area you are looking to represent; you can be living in the same kind of urban area. After all, "Town" is a sprawling area which has urban boundaries that are not obvious. Gone are the days of the 1834 map, when it was tightly clustered, and Springfield was set around fields, and indeed, a spring which gave its name to the area.
 
I work in St Helier, but close to St Saviour's Road. It is not obvious where boundaries are. The same houses, the same urban landscape, have more continuity than discrete boundaries. So I can appreciate that people in St Saviours could stand in St Helier; the geographical picture of "townscape", rather than absolute Parish boundaries has expanded over time, and that defines in cultural terms more how people think of "Town" - the shops, the streets, the flats, bedsits etc. St Saviour's Road is itself misleading in suggesting a Parish, as a good deal of it is in St Helier.
 
But what if you live miles away, in a pleasant rural surroundings? How much of a feel for the residents problems will you have? Even if you work in St Helier, as Mr Forrest has done, how many Parish meetings have you attended? Do you know what the day to day urban problems are? And if you did work in St Helier, but retired in 2002, how much have you kept in touch with the needs today, rather than over 10 years ago?
 
These two names stand out as geographically remote:
 
Name: Gordon Forrest. Age: 58. Address: St Peter, Occupation: Business consultant
Name: Ian David Philpott. Age: 69. Address: Grouville, Occupation: Retired
 
These are almost at opposite ends of the Island - St Peter, and Grouville. Now there is a long history of candidates coming from leafy rural districts (where there are not as many seats) into the more urban districts to stand, but I really wonder how in touch anyone can be at that distance. There is an existential detachment from the location, and the problems of the urban Parish are very different from those of the rural Parish.
 
In fact, many people who have businesses in St Helier also live outside of St Helier; like Mr Forrest, they can be concerned with Town problems when it effects their business, but in terms of bad housing, noise, traffic - well, at the end of the day, they leave and go home to their rural surroundings. Can Deputies understand local issues without experiencing them on a daily basis, any more than other commuters do?
 
Those that are local residents or live close by in the Town's umbrella are probably more likely to understand local issues. That is not a requirement, of course, but it helps. If I lived in St Helier, I would be rather disgruntled with someone who "parachuted in" from a rural Parish.
 
If the position was reversed - if the candidates lived in St Helier, and wanted to stand elsewhere - in St Peter or Grouville, they would receive short shift. So why didn't they ever stand there? Why have they decided to throw their weight towards St Helier rather than their home Parish?
 
After all, Gordon Forrest's declaration that commuter services need improving is in fact a sensible policy for the electorate of St Peter, but for St Helier, where most commuters are pedestrians, it seems widely out of touch with the electorate.
 
And for someone of nearly 70 to suggest that the problem of drink can be solved in St Helier by raising the age to 21, as Mr Philpott does, seems like the kind of suggestion made sipping an aperitif at the country golf club with other elderly gentleman, and hopelessly out of touch with young people, or even young tourists, who would all need to be told in big notices in local pubs.
 
The answer, I expect, is that they think it is easier to stand in St Helier. St Helier's districts offer more opportunities than rural Parishes, where there may be more competition, and the people might not vote for them because they can see better candidates. It is a "safe seat" for them.
 
Does St Helier's electorate want "Commuter Deputies", coming in from pleasant rural districts, or has the tide finally turned against that well-worth path to easier electoral pickings? It will be interesting to see.

The Election: Does Age Matter?

This was an article I wrote at the beginning of February, and was in my "blog ideas" folder. As I'm not really up to blog postings this week, I shall be trawling through my archive a bit! It was prompted by an age gap of 46 years between youngest and oldest candidates standing.

The Election: Does Age Matter?
 
I hope to raise a few questions and suggests some different answers to questions on the periphery of these elections. One question which has presented itself: does age matter?
 
It can be thought that a very young candidate just does not have the experience of life in "the outside world", while a much older man may well have more rigid and unbending views, and be out of touch with the needs of the present.
 
It is interesting that we have possibly youngest candidate to try for the States, Sam Mezec, at 23 years old, and at the other end of the spectrum, Ian Philpott, who declined to give his age, but who is 69 years old, and 70 later this year, as his Facebook profile testifies.
 
It is possible that Ian Philpott thinks that his age might count against him (hence his hestitancy), yet there are a number of British politicians who became Prime Minister around his age. Obviously they had been elected as MPs before that date, but evidently their peers thought them the man for the job, not to pass over in favour of younger men.
 
Yet Henry Campbell-Bannerman was 69 when he became Prime Minister in 1905, and was the First Lord of the Treasury to be officially take the title "Prime Minister". Known colloquially as "CB", he was a firm believer in free trade, Irish Home Rule and the improvement of social conditions. As Wikipedia notes, he also laid the ground for later reforms in a remarkable series of changes to the welfare of children:
 
"As Prime Minister, Campbell-Bannerman also passed the Probation Act 1907, which established supervision within the community for young offenders as an alternative to prison, and the Children's Charter, which formed the basis of modern child welfare law, including a clause imposing punishment for those neglecting children. It was also made illegal for children to purchase alcohol, tobacco or fireworks, and medical inspections began to be rolled out across the nation."
 
But even older, but just as memorable, was Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston on 6 February 1855 who was appointed for the first time at the age of 71 years for a period of 3 years. He became Prime Minister once more in 1859 when he was seventy-five years old. He is still the oldest individual to take office as Prime Minister.
 
At times in favour of Parliamentary Reform, at times opposed to further Reform, he was a popular politician who dominated foreign affairs for many years, and is probably most notable for his "Civis Romanus Sum" speech:
 
"As the Roman, in days of old, held himself free from indignity when he could say 'Civis Romanus Sum' [I am a Roman citizen], so also a British subject in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England will protect him against injustice and wrong."
 
But as Home Secretary, he had been responsible for
-          a Factory Act
-          a Smoke Abatement Act in London
-          the Penal Servitude Act that stopped transportation to Tasmania (Van Diemen's Land)
 
Turning to the problems faced by callow youth, the youngest Prime Minister to be appointed was William Pitt the Younger, who took office  on 19 December 1783 at the age of 24 years old.  He was from an aristocratic family, and was privately educated at home. At 14, he went to Cambridge, but again ill health struck, and he chose to graduate without having to pass examinations, taking dvantage of a little-used privilege available only to the sons of noblemen. He tried for Parliament twice, and got in at a bi-election in the pocket borough of Appleby, which was controlled by his patron James Lowther. Ironically, he later criticised the scheme of rotten boroughs.
 
Pitt can hardly have any claim to a wider experience of the world. His education was private and singular, not in the company of other students. At Cambridge, he tended to socialise only with fellow students and others already known to him, and he rarely ventured outside the university grounds.
 
When he became Prime Minister, he was an easy target because of his youth - "a sight to make all nations stand and stare: a kingdom trusted to a schoolboy's care". And yet he presided as Prime Minister for a period of 17 years, earning great great popularity with the public at large as "Honest Billy". He was seen as a refreshing change from the dishonesty, corruption and lack of principles widely associated with previous incumbents of high office.
 
Although he failed in some of his reforms, he worked with Wilberforce towards the eventual abolition of the Slave Trade, and the Slave Trade Act was passed in 1807, once year after his death. His enthusiasm for reform still remained despite setbacks, and one quote is still as pertinent today in summing up his radical agenda:
 
"Necessity was the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It was the argument of tyrants; it was the creed of slaves."
 
Does age matter? As my ramble though a few examples taken from history shows, it need not do so. The older man standing for election can bring the wealth of experience of working with other people on charitable ventures, and making things happen, and of the need to do more to combat social ills. And the younger man can bring the fresh idealism of youth, and an incisive eye against the laid back attitude that refuses to look at matters needing reform, both internal, and in matters of social justice.

Vote John Le Maistre for Constable

It's the election for a new Constable in Grouville today, and I'd strongly recommend voting for John Le Maistre. He will bring a fresh vision of a younger man to the Parish (and has been actively involved in the Parish Youth Club), but his family also has roots in Jersey's heritage, and he is mindful of that tradition and culture.

This can be seen in his manifesto, which can be read online at:
http://www.voteforjohn.co.uk/manifesto

It's a detailed manifesto, and looks at both the Parish of Grouville, and the Island of Jersey, and I think shows someone who can balance the needs of the two well, and who has thought not only about his own Parish, but also the wider Island issues which a States member should also consider.

(photograph by Suzanne Le Feuvre)

As his Facebook page notes, John will visit every household in the parish over the next few weeks. If you are concerned about any issues either parish or island wide, he will be only too happy to discuss these with you. He will leave calling cards with his contact details for those who are out when he calls. If you see John out and about in the parish, please give him a supportive wave!

He will be an approachable Constable, and as he notes:

Slightly brighter day for door knocking today - it's been a bit wet of late! I have enjoyed meeting some very friendly and supportive people on my walks - remember, if you have any concerns please do mention them when I visit. If you were out when I called, please do not hesitate to contact me to discuss any issues!



PLEASE VOTE JOHN LE MAISTRE FOR CONSTABLE

PPC: A Voice of Common Sense

"Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget,
For we are the people of England, that never has spoken yet." (G.K. Chesterton)

There has been an extraordinarily vitriolic response from the editor of the Jersey Evening Post, Chris Bright to the latest proposals for reform from PPC:

"In essence, the 47-Member structure now on the table would, if approved, consist of six Senators, 12 Constables and 29 Deputies. However, the allocation of Deputies among the parishes would be changed to increase St Helier's quota while - and this beggars belief - depriving St John, Trinity and St Mary of this category of representation." (1)

The bias can be seen by contrasting this with the much more "matter of fact" presentation by the BBC which notes:

"The number of deputies representing each area is based on population figures from 40 years ago and has been shown to favour smaller parishes at the expense of more populous ones."

"Once elected, Connétables and deputies have identical voting rights." (2)

The misleading impression which the Jersey Evening Post - and some politicians are suggesting - is that three Parishes will lose all representation in the States. The JEP leader says these proposals are "depriving three parishes of representation". That's sloppy journalism, and it is untrue.

You don't need to be a supporter of Option A, or for that matter Option B, to see that the smaller Parishes, and St Mary, in particular, are hugely over-represented. A Parish that size can hardly place very onerous duties on its Constable like that of St Helier, or even St Brelade, where it could almost be considered a full-time occupation. There is no reason whatsoever why the Constables of those Parishes should not spend more time as representing their Parishioners as States members.

Lewis Baston is a Senior Research Fellow of Democratic Audit, a research organisation based at the University of Liverpool. He also has assisted a committee of the States of Deliberation of Guernsey in advising on electoral systems in our sister island. He was commissioned by Advocate Mark Renouf to provide independent advice for a submission to the electoral commission, and he noted that "redistribution of Deputy seats would achieve more equality of numbers without changing long-established constitutional features like the representation of Constables. "

He also noted that if the de minimis level of representation for a Parish is a Constable, then greater voter parity can be achieved with no loss of the Constables and Parish system:

"If this de minimis is reduced to that of a Constable and no additional Deputy (after all, a Constable is a Deputy with an additional local role, and in many jurisdictions individuals may combine local and national office), greater equalisation is possible without increasing numbers. Removing Deputies from St John, St Mary and Trinity, and adding them to St Brelade-2, St Clement and St Helier-3, reduces variability to 14.2 with no increase in size. It would also reduce the spread between the most and least represented electors with the smallest (St Mary) being 84 per cent of average and the largest (Trinity) being 128 per cent of average" (3)

And he was in favour of retaining an overall threefold representation of Senator, Constables and Deputies.

PPC is in line with this thinking:

"The Committee considers that the principles of fairness of representation must override any such concerns. If representation is linked to the size of population, it is inevitable that smaller parishes will have fewer representatives and if Connétables are to play a full and meaningful role as members of the States, there should be no difference for residents if they are represented by a Connétable or a Deputy in the States. PPC believes it would be quite wrong to allow smaller parishes to have more than their fair share of representation."

The retention of Senators is one thing that was most regretted by those who voted for Option C. Invariably, because they didn't want to lose Constables as well, a number of second votes went to Option B rather than Option A. But having conducted a random survey at the time, it is clear that this was very much seen as the lesser of two evils.

Contrary to the Electoral Commission's decisions, I suspect most people, outside of those who live and breath politics, resent the loss of Senators. The question the Commission never asked was: should the Senators remain in the States - Yes / No. Instead we had a fudge, where two options excluded the Senators and all that remained was the status quo. That can hardly be considered asking public opinion on the retention of the Senators.

The fact that a number Option C voters did also have a second choice for Option B shows that they wanted to retain the Constables. But it is also clear that as a second choice, they did not want the loss of the Senators or the Super constituencies which were part of that Option. 

So PPC have crafted an interim measure which (a) keeps the Senators, with 6 places for election, as in previous years (b) retains the Constables and Parish system (c) adjusts the allocation of Deputies to make this give better voter parity. It is the best deal left after the States voted against Option B when proposed by the previous PPC.

"Following the rejection by the States of the large constituency model, PPC has considered whether or not the retention of the Island-wide mandate remains important for 2014.  The Committee is conscious that the Final Report of the Electoral Commission (see Section 5.2) showed that 58% of those making submissions to the Commission wished to maintain or even enhance the number of members elected on an Island-wide basis, whereas only 42% of respondents were content for the Island-wide mandate to be abolished."

But an alternative on the table are two propositions which are Option B plus tweaks. Let's be clear - those tweaks were either not on the table originally, or rejected by the States before the Referendum. They are new proposals, just as new as the PPC ones, and also like that proposals which have not been subject to a Referendum. For those options, surely the JEP leading article would be just as appropriate if not more so:

"The interim proposals now presented for debate represent exactly what the Island does not need - further desperate tinkering with the system."

Philip Ozouf 's tinkering gives an extra two Deputies to St Helier. Trevor Pitman's gives an extra four. Surely if anything deserves the adjective "tinkering", that fits the bill.

And Constable Phil Rondel's criticism of PPC's proposals could just as easily be levied at Ozouf / Pitman, when he says that extra "seats are wasted on St Helier and would give the Parish too much power". Fairer representation seems somewhat off his radar.

Regarding Geoff Southern's proposal of Clothier, there has been a lot of talk over the years - including that from Senator Bailhache (but selectively) of "getting back to Clothier". The difference between Deputy Southern's proposal and that of PPC is that they will put it to the public in a Referendum first. As Jeremy Macon explained:

"A yes/no referendum should be put forward for the public because we feel that this question is a clear question. Also we thought that if you tied it to the election period you get a higher turnout, make it an election issue and again it provides the public with the ability to give a verdict on the Clothier proposals yes, or no."

In fact it gets right everything that was wrong about the original Referendum - the timing at an election to improve numbers, a simple yes / no question. Only the JEP could think otherwise.

As for the Deputies who would have to fight other seats to remain in the States, let us not forget that the 1832 Reform Act in the UK saw a number of MPs vote for boundary and distribution changes that effectively voted themselves out of existence.

The great political historian Thomas Babington Macaulay was MP for the rotten borough of Calne. But for him, principle was important, and he spoke out passionately for reform. His speech which was admitted on both sides to be the best of the session. And yet he would lose his own seat as a result - he later stood as an MP in Leeds. He could have defended rotten boroughs and saved his seat, but he was more principled and courageous:

"We talk of the wisdom of our ancestors; and in one respect at least they were wiser than we. They legislated for their own times.... They framed a representative system, which, though not without defects and irregularities, was well adapted to the state of England in their time. But a great revolution came.. New forms of property came into existence. New portions of society rose into importance. Towns shrank into villages. Villages swelled into cities larger than the London of the Plantagenets. All history is full of revolutions, produced by causes similar to those which are now operating in England. Such, finally, is the struggle which the middle classes in England are maintaining against an aristocracy of mere locality." (Macaulay)

Links
(1)   http://www.thisisjersey.com/jersey-evening-post/editorial/  
(2)   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-24282600
(3)   http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-case-for-option-c.html
(4)   http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyPropositions/2013/P.116-2013.pdf

Focus On: Charles Dix Manifesto for Constable’s Election

I've been looking at Charles Dix's manifesto at vote.je, most of which consists of quotations from Senator Philip Bailhache, and it raises some interesting questions about his predecessor as well as his own.
 
"My candidate is a democrat. He would want to represent, as far as is possible, the views of the parish in the States. He approves the old idea of giving parishioners the opportunity to express their views on major policy issues at a Parish assembly before the States debate. He would certainly have represented the views of the 1037 parishioners who voted in favour of reform in the recent referendum, rather than the 264 who voted against reform; and would not have opposed the Bill to bring in those changes. That is what democracy is all about."
 
Now there's a sleight of hand here that may not be noticed. Sir Philip suggests that Charles Dix would have voted for the Option B proposals in the States, and this gives the impression that he would be taking the views of the Parish to the Assembly. In fact while a casual reading suggests that, it actually says nothing more than if elected, he would take soundings at Parish meetings about major policy issues about the views of Parishioners. That's not the same thing at all.
 
They will have "the opportunity to express their views", but nowhere does it say that he will be bound by those views, apart from the one instance of the recent Referendum. And we are not told what constitutes a "major policy issue" either, which is a fatal weakness in this presentation. Would the introduction of GST, or a further rise to GST be considered "major policy issue"? We don't know. We can see, however, that Sir Philip Bailhache has lost none of his legal acumen for subterfuge.
 
As Mr Dix puts as a "challenge" to whoever is elected - "Working families are seeing ever growing taxes on incomes that are hardly rising, whilst inflation is still with us.", any increase in taxes would be of interest to know how he's going to vote.
 
There's also the suggestion that those who voted against the PPC "Option B" in the States are not true democrats, which is perhaps surprising from someone who took over an independent electoral commission, after the democratic decision of the States was in favour of that, and who nowhere gave any realistic option for retaining the Senators, despite widespread popular appeal for their retention. Banging the democratic drum is something Senator Bailhache does badly.
 
And I think it is uncharitable to leave the impression that former Constable, the late Dan Murphy, would have voted against Option B in the States. That's the impression one gets from this spiel from Senator Bailhache – if Charles Dix had been Constable, he would "certainly have represented" the views of the Parishioners which implied that the previous incumbent had not.
 
I had to look up the votes to see how Dan Murphy voted, and in fact, he was absent from the Assembly because of illness. We don't know what way he might have voted, pour or contre or abstained, because he was not there, and to suggest otherwise is to again use sleight of hand to discredit someone who can't defend themselves.
 
The same veiled criticism of his predecessor can be seen in the following:
 
"I would like to re-institute the Comite Paroissale, to bring together all sections of the municipality in planning for the future. Decisions based on shared information are usually the best ones."
 
"I have long advocated the building of a Parish team of those willing, on an ongoing basis; and especially in winter and other emergencies; to give support to the elderly and vulnerable in the parish. Several other parishes and groups are starting to address this need; and I would like to bring all together to find a common purpose and method to help those less fortunate"
 
It suggests that Dan Murphy supported neither of those things. Charles Dix, as Chef de Police, and also with involvement in Parish events had plenty of opportunities to both suggest these, and sort out emergency teams. In fact, who better placed than a senior member of the honorary police, who often do have to help out on the roads in inclement weather?
 
We are led to conclude that either Mr Dix was keeping his light extremely well hidden under a bushel, or previous Constables have not chosen to hear his advocacy. What other interpretation can we put on "long advocated"?
 
He raises three challenges
 
• Our young people face a shortage of job opportunities not seen since the 1930's.
• Working families are seeing ever growing taxes on incomes that are hardly rising, whilst inflation is still with us.
• Investment income yields for the retired have fallen drastically since 2008.
 
And states "They look for a Connétable, who is approachable, gets things done, solves problems; and is a really good communicator."
 
But nowhere in his slim manifesto does he suggest any solutions to these problems. The manifesto is like the "Yes Minister" episode "The Challenge", when Hacker manages to ramble on without a firm commitment to any solid proposals
 
Jim Hacker: It's a challenge I'm looking forward to.
Ludovick Kennedy:  How will you meet the challenge?
Jim Hacker: It's far too early to give detailed proposals.
 
While transport is a problem regarding the cycle track, which is not fit for use, Charles Dix also has something to say about the bus service. That's as near as you will get to "major policy matters" in this manifesto, but it is worth reviewing:
 
"Our excellent bus service: Having lived some 30 years close to the bus routes, and being a daily bus user, I appreciate the superb service we are given. If elected I will champion the maintenance of the helpful new schedules."
 
The Grouville bus service must indeed be excellent where the reports from elsewhere are for late services, new drivers who do not know the way, and – in the West – incoherent time tables which lead to multiple busses converging on St Aubin at the same time.
 
I'd have expected to see just a little about the need for more bus shelters, details on when the Avanchi top up card will come online (promised in June), and resolving problems with late school buses, but perhaps as a pensioner who doesn't have to pay bus fares, this is not of immediate concern to Mr Dix.
 
But what is surprising is that a paragraph should be devoted to a eulogy on Liberty bus, when it could have been better devoted to immigration policy, or even some proposals for environmental matters
 
"I hope to be able to debate and form parish policy on future development; bearing in mind the need for first time buyer homes: and possible uses of dormant fields: by an advisory subcommittee of the Comite Paroissale."
 
Where is immigration policy here – surely one of those "major policy issues"? And while there is a debate on future development (with no firm commitments in the manifesto), where is there any recognition of the changes that might be needed for an ageing demographic, as seen for instance, in St Ouen's attempt to get sheltered housing?
 
And for someone with connections to an IT firm, it is disappointing that there is no online website to see more than the bare bones which are given here.
 
It will be interesting to see how well he does, and whether the Parish is prepared to endorse a manifesto that has quite a bit more style than substance. Nevertheless, endorsement can be a powerful tool, and the fact that Sir Philip Bailhache, Jersey's equivalent of a heavyweight political boxer, has chosen to endorse Mr Dix will undoubtedly sway quite a few voters in his favour.

Odds and Ends: Asbestos and the Constables Submission

Asbestos

A Jersey campaign group says there are 217 containers with asbestos in at the Energy for Waste Plant.  Save Our Shoreline (SOS) initially thought there were 40 containers with the material in, but there is actually more than five times that amount. SOS are concerned the units are not air or watertight, meaning asbestos fibres could seep out into the atmosphere.  If they do and are inhaled they can cause lung damage, although the symptoms can take many years to appear. Deputy Kevin Lewis, the Transport and Technical Services Minister, confirmed to Channelonline there are 217 containers and that a long term solution to handling asbestos needs to be found. He said: "It was my election pledge to get rid of the toxic ash and asbestos from La Collette and I remain committed to doing that."  Deputy Lewis insists there is no short term danger in storing the asbestos in containers, but admits they are not a long term fix. He has set himself a target of finding an alternative method within the next twelve months. (1)

Deputy Lewis has stated that "They are getting old now, I am happy with it as it is, in a sense it is double wrapped and sealed in containers but the containers are starting to rust." (2)

So are we to believe the containers will remain safe? The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality has a guideline on "Approved Asbestos Disposal Containers"

It notes that "Asbestos disposal containers do not have to be new. Containers may be used but must be in such a condition that
the structural integrity and impermeability of each container remains intact"(3). Important factors are that the containers are " free of all but minor rust" and "free of sharp creases and dents". Obviously the latter could impact on the wrapping material inside, if the dent caused the structural integrity of that to fail. It's not clear who can examine the containers at La Collette, or if there were any dents or creased, especially with the lifting of the containers, whether that would be reported on; it is certainly unlikely that it would appear in the public domain.

US Guidelines on hazardous waste also require that containers are labelled, not just of the kind of waste, but also the "Accumulation Date - the day, month and year that you first placed waste in the container" (3). Labels must be durable and not obscured by other markings.

Release of fibres or dust that could be inhaled is the main concern with waste asbestos. I've not been able to trace any incidents of storage containers breaking down, and causing environmental danger with asbestos, but there is, of course, always a first time. The longer the containers rust, the greater the risk to their structural integrity, whether in situ, or when attempts are made to move them.

Constables Again

It's been brought to my attention that Article 2(1) of the States of Jersey Law 2005 states the 12 Connétables are members of the States by virtue of their office. That Law states the Constitution of the States is as follows: "2 Constitution of the States (1) The States of Jersey are constituted as follows - - the Bailiff; - the Lieutenant-Governor; - 10 Senators, elected as provided by this Law; - the Connétables of the 12 Parishes of Jersey, who are members of the States by virtue of their office; - 29 Deputies, elected as provided by this Law; - the Dean of Jersey; - the Attorney General; - the Solicitor General. (2) All members of the States shall have the right to speak in the Assembly. (3) Only elected members shall have the right to vote in the Assembly." Under the definitions in that Law "elected member" means a Senator, Connétable or Deputy.

This means that while the Constables are "elected members" of the States under the definitions, it is "by virtue of their office" that they are members of the assembly. Now this may seem nit-picking, but the Constables are also members of other committees by virtue of their office - for example, the Constable of St Helier is the President ex-officio of the St Helier-Bad Wurzach Partnerschaft, and that of St Brelade is an honorary member of the St Aubin's Boat Owner's Association.

But it would be a strange use of language, surely, to say that they were "elected" to those bodies. If the Constable changes, the person taking over (by a public election for Constable) also appears as a member, but there is no specific election within the St Helier-Bad Wurzach Partnerschaft or the St Aubin's Boat Owner's Association. It is just that the Constable, whoever that might be, is a member. There is no election within the body itself.

So the presentation of the Committee of Constables which states that the Constable "is indeed elected to office in order with the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002" is in fact being rather disingenuous in its presentation. The procedure for elections is set out in the law, as it states "the same law which sets out the procedure for the ballot for the election of Senators and Deputies" - but they don't state that the reason why Constables are in the States is quite different, it is by virtue of their office. The said law, as in fact they point out, also lays down procedure for ballots for Procureurs du Bien Public and Centeniers, but they are not in the States. That part of the law is just about elections, not about membership of the assembly, which is stated elsewhere.

One oddity which no one has yet remarked upon was that the recent change in the law in May 2012, which revoked the Constables right to carry a warrant card, also gave the Procureur du Bien Public the ability to deputise for the Constable in the States if they are incapacitated for a long period, but because the position is an honorary one, they would not be paid. This seems a very bizarre situation, and singles out the Constables as quite different from the other classes of States member. I cannot think of any other government where members have effectively alternates to be present and vote in the States if they cannot be present because of incapacity. It is an anomaly which should be rectified if the Constables remain in the States.

I'm still in favour of retaining the Constables, for reasons stated clearly elsewhere in this blog, and I will not re-iterate my arguments. But if they do remain, they should do so on proper grounds, not on a spurious presentation to the Electoral Commission.

And why, oh why, did they end  by saying that the submission would "assist the Committee in its review in reaching a conclusion" which will "ensure the delivery of an effective and efficient public service at island and parochial level and provide 'joined up Government' for the benefit of all islanders". The banal phrasing and descent into cliché - "joined up government" does their submission no credit at all.

Links
(1) http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline_jerseynews/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=501022
(2) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-19254729
(3) http://deq.state.wy.us/shwd/downloads/guidelines/swg04.pdf
(4) http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/hazwaste/regs/pdf/haz_waste_leg_guide.pdf

The Unelected Classes of States Member - the Bailiff

This is my latest submission to the Electoral Commission.

It covers some ground previously in a blog posting, but has been reworded with some extra text. It seems extraordinary to me that the Terms of Reference do not mention whether they deal with elected or unelected States members - of which the Bailiff and Dean are surely there - but the Commission website excludes those in its list of types of member. It's clear that the terms of reference do not rule out any consideration of those offices, but the Commission, in its wisdom (!), has seen fit to restrict the way it interprets those terms of reference.

Daniel Wimberley (in the guest post on Trevor Pitman's blog) notes that:

One of them, Mr. Storm I think, said that bias is in the eye of the beholder. He completely ignores the fact that people have every reason to think the Commission is biased.

In the case of the Bailiff, given the Carswell submissions, Sir Philip Bailhache may or may not be biased, but he is certainly conflicted. How can he judge his own actions fairly, dispassionately? Or will the submission, and the whole question of whether the Bailiff should stay in the States be ignored, or put off for another day?

Laying my cards on the table, as will be seen, I have no objection to the Bailiff presiding over the States (although cost-wise, I'm not sure it is necessarily value for money), but I do have an objection to his right to veto - however finely you want to dress it up - any propositions put forward.

That's the key problem - not that he's in the Chair, but what he does when he's not in the Chair in the Chamber. When even an Advocate like Tim Herbert is patently ignorant of that power, that needs to be made more public: an unelected member of the States deciding on whether elected members propositions can be accepted by him or not, with no need to put anywhere on the public record that they have been rejected, with reasons why.

The Unelected Classes of States Member - the Bailiff

The Commissions' brief is to consider:

"The classes of States member"

"all other issues arising in the course of the work of the Commission which are relevant to the needs stated above"

While the Commission website focuses on the elected members of the States, surely it should consider ALL classes of States Member, and to ignore the unelected, ex-officio members of the States is to diminish the scope of its terms of reference - which nowhere state that it is elected members alone that should be considered in its four paragraphs.

In this respect, two members of the States should be considered - the Bailiff and the Dean. In this submission, I'd like to focus on the Bailiff, who has considerably more political power than the Dean.

While the Bailiff is President of the States, unless deputised to the Deputy Bailiff, the Greffier or even (as in the law), a States member (which has happened in the past), what is of more concern is not keeping order, making sure standing orders are adhered to, but what happens behind the scenes.

In a recent exchange with Deputy Mike Higgins, Deputy Higgins said that the Deputy Bailiff (acting on behalf of the Bailiff) had denied the opportunity to bring forward a proposition to the States:

I have asked for this proposition to be put forward to the States because I believe the States were misled by the former Minister for Home Affairs at the time. My matter of privilege is that you have denied me the opportunity to bring this proposition, which I think needs to be heard by the House and the decisions need to be made by the House, and I believe the public must be assured that information that was put out at the time is correct.

In reply, the Deputy Bailiff noted that "the arrangements are that when a Member wishes to lodge a proposition he or she needs to have the consent of the Bailiff before it is an option."

Propositions should, as Deputy Higgins himself mentioned, meet three tests -to be lawful, to corresponds with Standing Orders and not to be detrimental to States business. What emerged was that the Standing Orders make it plain that a Member has no right to lodge a proposition without the leave of the Bailiff.

This incident is significant because it shows an often overlooked power of the the Bailiff or Deputy Bailiff - the ability to use his power to block propositions again - this relates to Haut de La Garenne and the Historical Child Abuse Enquiry. Mike Higgins wants to open up a short piece of the transcript of an "in camera" debate on the suspension of Graham Power to the public gaze.

Importantly, it shows that there is a power to veto propositions held by the Bailiff (and by virtue of that office, devolving to the Deputy Bailiff). Note the way in which the Deputy Bailiff suggests that it is just a matter of form - "a Member has no right to lodge a proposition without the leave of the Bailiff. That leave has not yet been given.".

What is clear is that he has in fact blocked the proposition from Deputy Higgins, and if Deputy Higgins had not raised the matter, no one in the States would know.

Now I'm not objecting to his power to veto a proposition; the States must make their own mind on the powers of the office. But it cannot be good for open and transparent government if the Bailiff or Deputy Bailiff (unelected members) can veto a proposition, and that the grounds for that are not made public - or even the fact that he has done so.

This is something which is perhaps an overlooked section in the Carswell report on the role of the Crown Officers in the States. The report notes that:

Outside the Chamber, the Bailiff has to consider draft propositions and draft questions, which he must admit unless they contravene Standing Orders. The Bailiff may on occasion discuss these matters with individual members of the States. If questions are not properly framed, the Greffier or the Bailiff will regularly suggest amendments to address the defect and allow the questions to proceed.

It was represented to us by a number of respondents that although the Bailiff must apply Standing Orders in all decisions which he makes and is bound to give all members an opportunity to speak when they express a wish to do so, he nevertheless exerts a degree of political influence by the manner in which he carries out his function.

Members of the States may also suppose that the Bailiff has allowed political considerations to affect his application of Standing Orders, particularly when he has ruled against their submissions

Former Deputy Bob Hill made this plain in an interview he had with the Carswell committee:

There are problems where conflicts are clear, and my first conflict came when soon after being elected as a member of the States and we had a big debate on the sixth form college. And I felt really that there was an opportunity here for us to have an overall sixth form college, and I tried to lodge an amendment to include Victoria College as part of the sixth form college system, and it was refused. But, of course, I did argue with the Bailiff [Sir Philip Bailhache] and said, "Well, with respect, sir, you are Chairman of the Governors of Victoria College as well". He said, "Well, that doesn't come into it" and I said, "You allow me to put an amendment in about the ladies' college, but not allow me to put an amendment in". He said, "Well, I make the final decision".

Sir, I learnt at an early stage that there was no right of appeal, because that is the situation. You make your application to the Bailiff, and the Bailiff says you can have something or you cannot. That is the same for amendments and propositions in questions so, if one wants to ask a question, at the end of the day, it is the Bailiff that has the ultimate decision as to whether you can ask it or not.

In his written submission, Bob Hill summarised the lack of appeal against a decision, which might be conflicted:

At present the Bailiff is responsible for approving requests from Members when lodging questions, both oral and written, propositions, amendments and making personal statements. If the Bailiff rejects the requests there is no ability to appeal against that decision. I have personal experience and the current arrangements should not continue.

The lack of accountability, and the way in which the Bailiff could and did block questions and propositions came up in the public meeting that was held by Lord Carswell:

Deputy Le Claire stated that it could be difficult to separate the personalities from the offices they inhabited. He advised that he too had often been to see the Bailiff [Sir Philip Bailhache] in the Bailiff's Chambers en masse with other elected Members. He had personal experience of bringing propositions which had ultimately been refused. Deputy Le Claire admired the Bailiff; however, it was time for his role to be put to rest as the question continued to tear at the community. He hoped that the Panel could untangle the situation through its Review.

Mrs Corbett highlighted that the pertinent issue was the Bailiff's discretion in relation to decisions regarding questions et al. There would always be some form of discretion; however, it was not possible to subject these decisions to judicial review (as might otherwise be expected) given the Bailiff's judicial functions. Advocate Sinel advised that the Royal Court had no jurisdiction over the procedures of the States.

Former Deputy Paul Le Claire expanded on this in his written submission:

Censorship of Propositions: There have been occasions when States members, including me, have put forward propositions, only to have these amended, censored or ruled out of order by the Bailiff in his role as President or speaker of the States. This has happened in the context of matters which were potentially critical of the Courts and the judiciary, ultimately only being permitted without further delay by the Bailiff [Sir Philip Bailhache] in an amended proposition P62/20093. (That proposition related to my involvement in respect of a children case. My criticisms of the Court were vindicated in the Serious Case Review in respect of those children at paragraphs 8.14-8.18, 9.3 and 10 of the recommendations. Further concerns are highlighted subsequently in my submission).

States members (who have been duly elected by the people of Jersey) have consequently felt frustration when thus denied the right to debate an issue by virtue of a decision of an un-elected Crown appointee.

As former Senator Ted Vibert highlighted some 5 years ago that "The right to approve the content of questions and personal statements is a subtle power that controls a certain amount of what a member can say in the House. It will be argued that this vetting process is to ensure that there is no breach of Standing Orders but this power is discretionary and open to question"

"I would contend that there have been occasions in my own experience, where this power has been misapplied. Others have made the same point, the other Deputy and three Senators, one being myself when I was the holder of that office some years ago"

This was a point also made by Advocate Philip Sinel in his submission to Carswell:

The Bailiff is also President of the States Assembly. That is to say that he convenes all meeting of the States and presides over all sittings. He controls the debates and in particular controls the contents of questions which can be asked of the Government.

In practice the position as President of the States is one of enormous political power. He controls what questions may be asked in the States, he is able to refuse to table questions such as might embarrass the Government, which he heads, himself or his supporters.

Advocate Tim Herbert, in his submission to the Carswell Review, stated that

The title "President of the States" is just that. It does not connote political power.

But Advocate Herbert is mistaken. Clearly, the ability to rule a proposition out, and not allow the States to vote on it, as appears to be the case with Deputy Higgins, does connote political power.

But it is a subtle form of power behind the scenes, which is not usually in display, for which there is no means of appeal, and no way to call the Bailiff to account for using his powers to veto any question or proposition. That's probably why Deputy Higgins wished to raise the matter in the States, to call to account that this was happening.

Obviously, there may be occasions where such a veto is justified under the Standing Orders of the States, but as Deputy Higgins states, there are no reasons that he can see why his proposition has been rejected. It is currently being reconsidered, but will if it is rejected, will the reasons be made public?

They have not in the past, and this is a serious lack of transparency at the heart of the Bailiff's power. By all means he should be able to veto propositions, as it is within his powers, but he should also make available to public scrutiny the reasons for this, if this is requested.

I have no objection to the Bailiff remaining President of the States, but - because his office is not open to election at the Ballot Box, the power of veto, behind the scenes, should not be exercised by an unelected and unaccountable individual.
 
Clearly the Committee should consider this, and they should also consider whether Sir Philip should excuse himself from any decision, as the evidence of a veto, as noted by Carswell, would mean that he is conflicted from his time in office; he is hardly likely to be an impartial judge of his own actions.

This would be a similar step in a way, to the Bailiff's consultative panel, which was formed after it was decided that the Bailiff himself needed a wider forum to discuss matters rather than summarily ruling on whether shows could be performed or cinema films be shown (soon after, notoriously, one Bailiff banned "The Life of Brian").

One individual cannot often see their own bias, which is why that body came about. A similar reform should be considered by the Committee at the very least, and certainly there should also be provision to appeal.

Deputies

My comments about the Constables in my last posting raised a lot of flack, which I am very pleased about.

Reading the electoral commission submissions, they seem about evenly divided over whether the Constables remain. I agree wholly that voter parity does not sit well with the Constables in the States, which is why my argument that they should remain is based on the Sherman Compromise in the USA, which I still think has some validity; it was designed to ensure that smaller States could not be run roughshod over by larger States. The opposite is the UK, where despite fine words about devolution, while County Councils deliver a range of services, they are at the mercy of Central Government, which in principal means the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. That's the situation we will get in Jersey with the Constables out of the States.

Some people may welcome that, but I distrust the centralisation of power, which is also why I think a healthy Trade Union movement is a good counterbalance to Government. And I'm not sure our current one is that healthy at all. I don't want massive strikes, but I want a Trade Union movement that has sharp teeth to negotiate with, not one with false teeth that can't protect workers interests. It was amazing how people praised the late Rene Liron, yet when he was in office, there were plenty of insults and jibes against him, and talk of holding the Island to ransom. We catch a glimpse of that from a comment in the JEP in 2009 - "All this goes back to the 1970's & 1980's when Rene Liron and friends managed to negotiate unreal pay rises for public employees." Nothing of that sting in the glowing obituaries. It's always easier to praise a dead person than the living; they can't annoy you!

But not a lot of attention has been given to the Deputies. Some truly bizarre suggestions have been made in the submissions. One said there should be one Deputy per Parish, a truly odd suggestion, but there have been a lot of suggestions that the number of Deputies should be cut, and in particular, St Helier has too many Deputies. The idea of voter parity seems to have gone out of the window. However, there is a certain degree of support for the Clothier model, or a rough rearrangement of it, which might even give St Mary a vingtaine from St Ouen for numbers, to keep the Deputy Parish link. I'm in favour of breaking that. Deputies in smaller constituencies, such as the rural districts - or even St Brelade Number 1, mean that the first past the post system doesn't reflect the popular vote in the way that the Senators or Deputies elections with 3 or 4 seats do.

Instead, the Deputy of a smaller rural district, one in, can if they are clever, hold onto that district, and yet behave in paradoxical ways, because they represent a mixture of Parish and Island issues. One expects the Constables to focus on Parish issues. But Deputies will focus on Parish issues that are supporting the Parish, perhaps against the States, yet on matters like GST and other Island issues, they will pretty well ignore the electorate - in our example, they don't need to vote against GST because they have enough popular Parish support - they attend Parish events, Parish meetings, Battle of Flowers, take up Parishioners concerns, and get themselves seen out and about. One would hope they would, but because there's a Parish link to the Deputies, that ensures that even if the Parishioners disliked their policy on Island issues, it doesn't feature heavily in the manifesto - Parish trumps, and comes first.

So I expect a lot of resistance from Deputies who see themselves, and their constituency base, threatened by a move to larger electoral districts. I've even been told by one St Lawrence Deputy that he certainly doesn't want to be part of a larger constituency. He attends energetically to Parish affairs, and - yes - he voted for the Waterfront with its sunken road, and for GST, and still got in. The Parish is Top Trumps.

If Deputies are to be better representatives for Island issues, it is important that that Parish link is diminished. Larger constituencies will do that. A Deputy will have to address local concerns of a much larger area - perhaps Jersey West - St Brelade, St Ouen, St Peter. Of course, they can still take part in Parish events in the Parish in which they live, but that will have to be second in their manifesto, not first.

Electoral Commission Watch

A light snack at lunchtime with my father, who viewed my electorial submissions with some dismay. He is not in favour of keeping the Constables in the States. It was the old argument - "if they want to stand, let them stand as Deputies". All well and good, but then he went on to say how he thought (from many years experience, going back to the 1950s), that a lot of the Constables didn't do very much anyway - he made an exception for his own Constable, Simon Crowcroft, whom he said did a good job.

That's all very well, but if the Constables are removed from the States, and can stand as Deputies if they want, who are the ones who are most likely to do so? Those from the smaller rural Parishes, with a lesser workload, I imagine.

After all, if Simon Crowcroft, as Constable, stood as Deputy in a States without the Constables, wouldn't someone standing as Deputy against him be likely to say: "I can commit to be your Deputy 100% of my time. If you vote for Constable Crowcroft, you'll have someone who has to devote at least half of his time to Parish matters." In the smaller rural Parishes, however, the Constable could stand and say "My duties as Constable are very light, and I'll have plenty of time to participate in the States". So I think the reverse of what is intended would be the result: the Constables with smaller rural Parishes, some of whom may well be lazy (although I've only head that said of one), would be the ones most likely to get in as Deputies.

Meanwhile, the transcripts of the hearings continues to lag behind - it is still in July, and I wonder if Ian Gorst's will appear on the site before the closing date at the end of August, so that we can examine in detail what he said. It means it is difficult to present any submission to take into account the Chief Minister's point of view and address it. Michael Dun may well catch up with me, in the meantime. He's up to his third submission.

David Castledine's submission has suggested compulsory voting to boost numbers, as in Australia. I think that would be a violation of people's rights, turning the Island close to a police state - unless there is an option to vote for "none of the above".

To save embarrassement from large numbers of spoilt papers as protest, the Australian system counts them as "informal votes", which sounds so much better than "protest votes". In 2010, more than 600,000 Australians lodged informal votes at the federal election after former Labor leader Mark Latham advocated blank ballots in protest against the political system. He had also stated that he did not think it was fair for the government to force citizens to vote if they don't have an opinion or threaten them into voting with a fine.

Some of those votes were blank, but some could have been due to mistakes in numbering in the preferential system. Nevertheless the figure was 5.65% of the ballots cast compared with only 3.95 per cent at the 2007 election.

This was deemed by the Australian Electoral Commission to not break any election laws, despite Chief Justice Barwick's opinion that voters must mark the ballot paper, and Justice Blackburn who thought that it was a violation of the election laws. Of course, if there is a secret ballot, no one can prevent anyone spoiling their paper; conversely, if someone was taken to court for spoiling their ballot paper, it would mean that the ballot was not truly secret, and the whole system of democracy would be exposed as a hoax in that country.

Paul F.D. Letherbarrow's submission, as well as removing Constables, says that "It is essential to re-draw boundaries to create democratic balance. The current system does not allow true representation. In setting boundaries it is important to ensure as best a demographic mix of socioeconomic classes as possible."

That's all very well, but it is far easier to group Parishes, say St Brelade, St Peter and St Ouen to form "Jersey West", and decide the number of deputies to have parity with other large districts, than it is to decide on arbitrary boundaries with all the costs involved. Populations of Parishes are a matter of record. An artificial boundary is not only more prone to gerrymandering - just look at the controversy in the UK - but also means confusion for the electorate. It is difficult enough for the poor devils in St Helier with all the different districts.

Further Issues on Electorial Reform

The Electoral Commission has been taking submissions and holding hearings. The one advantage of the hearings, I suppose, is that it enables the Commission to ask questions relating to submissions, although this does mean that, in cricketing terms, they can bowl a googly to the person in front of them. That's no bad thing, but it is a pity that the hearing is the last word - there is no reason why the person involved shouldn't think about the questions asked, and provide a further submission which address those matters.

The hearings are also useful because they also allows us a glimpse of how the Commission's thinking is proceeding, or at least how Sir Philip Bailhache's thinking is proceeding.

I've been looking at recent submissions and hearings, and when Ian Gorst's is up, I'll comment on that - in the meantime, here are a few comments on others. I hate to say it, because I've crossed swords with the Senator on other matters, but Senator Ozouf's hearing is one of the most coherent, well argued, and I actually agree with quite a lot of what he says! Pierre Horsfall is also quite good, but I'm not convinced that most people will understand PR, or that it could be counted out without significant delays or changes (and costs) to the voting system. As for online electronic voting, or even plain electronic voting, I'm still not convinced - from the USA and UK - that the problems of abuse have been ironed out.

Lack of Statistics

There's a submission by Connétable John Refault on behalf of the parishioners of St. Peter, which notes that "The Parish of St Peter held a meeting of Parishioners to get a broad selection of views from them on the Electoral Reform. The results were as follows:- Retain the 12 Connetables - have 12 Deputies, one for each Parish and an further number of Senators with no agreement on number with Island wide representation."

What we don't know - and really need to know - is how many people attended the said meeting. Parish Assemblies can be packed on some issues, but on others, there may only be half a dozen people present. Without knowing that, any indication that this somehow is representative of the Parish is just so much hot air. A random poll of Parishioners by telephone would achieve a more representative result. And there is nothing on the Parish website - not even in the Parish events archive! I've emailed Mr Refault, and hope to find the information, which will give us a more accurate picture.

Balancing the Parish against the Centre:

A hearing on electoral districts by Sam Mezec about grouping together Parish districts gave rise to the following question by Professor Ed Sallis:

We have had people, though, who have suggested something similar, that the problem is let us say you put together, I do not know, St. Peter and St. Brelade - just for argument's sake - and then you end up not electing anybody from St. Peter because the majority of the population is St. Brelade.  Would you think get people in St. Peter saying: "We do not have representation any longer, the bigger parish has overwhelmed us" do you see that as a problem or not?

This is a good point, and I'm not sure that Sam adequately answers it. My own solution is to have larger districts to cluster Deputies - 5-6 per district, possibly aggregating Parishes together, but to retain the Constables to ensure the Parish representation. That was the Sherman solution in the United States, where there is a balance between electing people to the States there, and ensuring that no single State should lack representation. That's done through an upper house there, but there seems no reason why it could not be done though the same house in Jersey.

The Connecticut Compromise (also known as the Great Compromise of 1787 or Sherman's Compromise) was an agreement that large and small states reached during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that in part defined the legislative structure and representation that each state would have under the United States Constitution. It retained the bicameral legislature as proposed by James Madison, along with proportional representation in the lower house, but required the upper house to be weighted equally between the states. (1)

The reason for this was to retain a degree of balance. Less populous states like Delaware were afraid that the trend to proportional representation would result in their voices and interests being drowned out by the larger states. The thrust of the proposals were to ensure the balance, so that the smaller States should not see their voice drowned by the larger States:

The report recommended that in the upper house each State should have an equal vote and in the lower house, each State should have one representative for every 40,000 inhabitants. (1)

The compromise was proposed by Roger Sherman  and modified slightly by Benjamin Franklin. It was to ensure each state was equally represented in the senate, which was the main aim of the smaller states. That seems to be to be of the essence of the problem in Jersey: how to ensure that representatives cannot be elected who actually have no Parish allegiance whatsoever, and who may therefore decide on matters in which Parishioners have no voice at all. Larger districts for Deputies (so that they become quasi-Senatorial) and retention of the Constables achieves this kind of balancing act. Part of the reason for the Sherman compromise in the USA was to balance the small against the larger.

One of the fundamental arguments that John Stuart Mill took up and expanded on was John Adam's idea of the "tyranny of the majority". Mill sees that this occurs when a government that takes the majority view of its voters can use that power to oppress a particular minority. This of course, notoriously occurred in Jersey when in October 1799, the States passed a law imposing banishment on all Jerseymen who refused to conform with the laws and usages of the Militia Act. This required Royal Consent in Privy Council, but it was so drawn as to suggest that it was aimed only at the most obdurate offenders. There was no mention of the Methodists nor of their petition, although it was directed specifically against them.

It is therefore, not impossible, that a majority could exist which could impose its decisions on a Parish against that Parish, and in a situation - as described by Professor Sallis, where the Parishioners had no representation to support their case. That is something which need to be avoided, and I think that the USA provides, in macrocosm, a history of the compromises to achieve that, which should receive very careful consideration in Jersey.

Islandwide Voting

We can see the opposite extreme in the submission by Deputy Luce of St Martin, who wants - somehow - a kind of Island wide mandate. His position is not entirely coherent, but roughly speaking, it seems he wants to retain the Constables, but have every other States member elected on an Island wide mandate. This - as he himself notes - means that some extraordinary results might occur:

I think it is important to get the best people for the job of States Member and that may well mean that all 40-50 people may live in St. Ouen.

The problem with an all Island mandate is well stated by Senator Bailhache:

That gives rise, probably, to the question which arises the wish to have a larger number of people with an all-Island mandate, which is something that a number of people have said to us. We wonder if you have any ideas as to how one solves the practical difficulties. Suppose we have 30 Senators or 30 people with an all-Island mandate. How do we cope with 70-80 people on the platform?

Deputy Luce's proposal is for a 6 or 8 year term, with half the Senators being elected each time. He would do away with the Deputies, but later in his interview, he changes his mind, and suggests that either a Deputy of Constable for each parish would be possible:

If you are not going to elect your Constables to the States - and I would say they are in or they are out but there is no compromise - then I think you need a Deputy or somebody to deputise for the Constable to represent the parish, because I get back to parish representation is vitally important.

But he is clear that the Constables must all be in the States or Deputies to - effectively - Deputise for them, not a mixed bag of Constables or Deputies.

But the split of the voting from one general election day brings a problem which is well stated by Juliette Gallichan:

The Connétable of St. Mary: If we do away with the single-day election, if we have a staggered election, what do you feel about, for example, the Chief Minister elected in one Assembly at the end of 4 years, not having been elected at that time, if he is one of the ones that was in the interim period?  If we do away with the single-day election, if we have a staggered election, what do you feel about, for example, the Chief Minister elected in one Assembly at the end of 4 years, not having been elected at that time, if he is one of the ones that was in the interim period?

Deputy Luce, with his "best man for the job" approach does not see this as a problem. I think he is mistaken, and looking at his hearing, there are three important issues raised:

1) An all Island vote for States Members can lead to the "St Ouen" scenario, where all the members might come from just one or two Parishes. In practice that's obviously not likely, but nevertheless, some Parishes may be under represented or even not represented at all and we face the same problem of whether we want to retain the Parish system. This is partly addressed by the retention of the Constables, but not adequately.

2) An all Island vote for States Members, even if they were split between two terms of office, is still incredibly difficult in practical terms - voting for 17 people is just overload. I don't think this has been adequately thought through by its proponents. It does achieve proportionality, but at the cost of making the voting system almost unworkable. I couldn't vote for 17 people easily, and I seriously doubt if anyone could. Hustings would be unworkable.

3) The split of a general election day sees the return of a Chief Minister who has not faced the people in an election. If the powers of a Chief Minister are increased, so that they have more say over who they can propose, this should involve more checks and balances. This would be a retrograde step.

Unbalanced Constables

The submission of Brian Bullock throws up another issue relating to the Constables. This is one of the problems with a Clothier style solution, in which the Parish are just represented by Deputies, but a Constable can stand as a Deputy if he or she wants to.

Mr B. Bullock: If you have a problem within your Parish, you do not go to your Deputy, you go to the Parish Constable. I think that will always be the case in Jersey. I have referred in my list, even, to the parishes. I personally believe that is sacrosanct. What I do not think is necessary is to burden, in some cases, the Constable with also being a States Member, possibly a committee member, which has got to take them away from their role as father of the parish if you are multiplying the amount of work. But I can see that the parishes, through their Constable, although they have got a Deputy as well, might well have some argument in certain things that are brought up within the States Assembly. So I made what I thought was a pretty cunning compromise there, that they are always allowed to attend but they are allowed to speak if the issue affects the parish. But the other part of the compromise, any Constable can stand for election as a Deputy, or whatever you call a States Member.

The Connétable of St. Mary: How do you think it might be if say, 6 of the Constables are successful in that and so 6 parishes are directly represented in the States but 6 are not?

Mr B. Bullock: That is because they chose to do so.

The Connétable of St. Mary: Or because they wanted to, but the electorate did not choose them.

Senator Sir P.M. Bailhache: I am rather troubled by this. I see the logic of taking the Constables out of the States and saying: "That is a job which you can do and it only takes a couple of hours a week, but it is an honorary job, and so ..." whatever. Maybe it takes longer than that, but whatever amount of time it takes: "and if you want to be in the States, you will have to stand as a Member of the States of Jersey." What puzzles me, and I would just like you to explore this a little bit more, is how you would mix the 2 up. It is the same question, I suppose, as the question the Constable put to you. Where does it lead us if we have, in fact, 6 Constables in the States and 6 Constables not in the States? It just has a funny feel to it, does it not?

Mr B. Bullock: It does not have a funny feel to me, but you as a States Member may feel that. They would sit there, not as Constables. They would sit there as a States Member.

Senator Sir P.M. Bailhache: The ones who are in sit there as States Members.

Mr B. Bullock: Yes, and they could only get there by being elected.

Senator Sir P.M. Bailhache: So at the moment you have a block of Constables sitting in the States, but we would split them up in the future, as between those Constables who have been elected as Members of the States who would sit in the appropriate ... and then there would be another corner of the States where the honorary Constables would sit, who were there by right of ...

I can see where Senator Bailhache is coming from - some Constables would be able to speak and vote on States matters that concerned the Parishes, and others would not, perhaps only able to speak but not vote. This certainly seems a problem. It assumes the Deputies would be adequately briefed in those cases to speak on behalf of the Parish, and yet the voting record of the States shows that Deputies and Constables do not vote the same way. In the matter of States buildings, and Parish Rates, for example, a Constable who is looking after Parish finances might well have a stronger opinion that a Deputy who would be more detached from that consideration. The situation for a Deputy and Constable over Parish affairs is very different. It is certainly something to ponder.

Deputy as probation, Senators as experienced

One of the matters which keeps arising is the idea of Deputies as serving a term of introduction to the States before more experienced Deputies seeking election as Senators. One idea which has not, as far as I can see, been mooted very largely, is a consequence of this: the idea that Senatorial candidates can only be drawn from the rank of Deputies.

While that makes sense on the basis of the argument that the Deputy needs to learn the ropes first, it is surely not fair in that it excludes people from standing to the States. It says that the only people who can stand are on a particular slate - that of being a Deputy - and that is restricting both the choice of the electorate - who may not want any of the candidates who decide to stand, or the electorate, who all should have an opportunity to stand in any election.

The worse case scenario would be a single day election, where instead of there being an abundance of candidates for Senator, there was only the number required, or perhaps only one or two more. Most of the candidates would know they were onto a winning streak, and the ability of the electorate to vote against candidates would be impoverished to the point where voting would be virtually pointless.

It is not perhaps as far fetched as it may seem. I know several Deputies who have thought long and hard and decided against standing as Senator because of the risk involved. In their smaller constituency, they could marshal more support, deal with local issues, and top their poll; in the Island wide voting, they risked losing their seat.

This has come about largely because of the change to a single day election. Previously, a candidate could have two "bites of the cherry" - they could, and often did, try for the Senatorial election, while knowing that they had a safety net of a Deputy election a month later. There were a considerable number of States members who have either lost their seat as Senator, and gained re-entry as Deputy (e.g. Clarence Dupre, Don Filleul, Paul Le Claire to name a few), or who have tried as Senator and then got back in as Deputy (e.g. Guy de Faye, Geoff Southern etc). Equally some Deputies tried as Senator for their first entry to the States. There was no real risk, and indeed the extra publicity and platform gave them an advantage over candidates who were trying for Deputy for the first time.

The notion that someone could be voted out on an Island wide basis, return as a Deputy, and take up position as President or Minister on those matters for which the Island wide vote clearly acted as a vote of no confidence clearly was a breeding ground for electoral apathy, and the same day election was a good step. But to restrict - effectively as an electoral college - the membership of Senators (should that be retained) could lead to a choice so restricted as to be non-existent.

Moreover, some of the best States members have been elected for the first time on an Island wide basis. Examples from recent history would be Francis Le Gresley, and Ian Le Marquand, whom the general public have favoured over sitting States members who also stood. To say that they could not have stood, would be akin to the position in Guernsey, where there was a rule that the Chief Minister had to have been a States member who was not new to the States, which would have led to no vote for Chief Minister within the States and excluded the considerable talents of Deputy Harwood - who was in his way, Guernsey's equivalent of Cecil Clothier.

If the Senators are retained, they should be retained on the same basis at present, an Island wide mandate, open to anyone to stand.


Links
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise

Reform - the Rocky Road Ahead

States members will be allowed to sit on Jersey's new electoral commission when it is up and running. After nearly four hours of debate, politicians voted against St Saviour Deputy Roy le Herissier's amendment to exclude them from the reform group. Deputy le Hérissier wanted to keep members out of the committee so it could be truly independent. He lost the debate with 25 members voting against his change to 22 in favour. (1)

So the Commission will no longer be independent. Can it come up with a result that is acceptable to the States members? Clearly, if those who voted for it are in favour of the proposals, then it can. But the question is how public consensus will be sought?

The most likely outcome of the removal of independence will be the following:

a) Token consultation. The public will have the opportunity for a public consultation, but there will be no referendum on the final outcome. The consensus will be one approved by the States, and the public will have no part in the final decision making process. This is tokenism, where a crust falls from the table of the rich man, so that the poor man can feel as though he participates in the meal. There should be a real engagement with the public, and a chance for the public to vote on proposals. It is time that the referendum be used for serious purposes rather than idiotic tinkering with time systems that never was going to happen.

b) Clothier style Uniformity. One reason why the Harwood report did so much better in Guernsey than Clothier in Jersey was that it was like a multiple choice questionnaire. Where there were several options possible, all of which would help reform the States of Guernsey, a preferred one was suggested, but alternatives were given.

Clothier presented a single "take it or leave it" approach, which not surprisingly failed to be implemented. For instance, whether the Constables remain or are left out can remain an option to be voted upon, and not predetermined with the proposals brought to the States.

c) The Ghost of Clothier. Just as the devil can cite scripture for his purposes, as the saying goes, and fundamentalists use selective proof texts from scripture to support their case, expect the removal of the Senators to be justified by reference to the Clothier report, but the removal of the Constables (also in the Clothier report) to be neatly glossed over. Clothier was like a failed attempt at cloning; it gave us a man with only half a brain. It is time to ditch Clothier as a flawed attempt to impose a uniform regime, and start afresh.

d) The worst of all possible worlds? Perhaps the introduction of election deposits will rear its ugly head again, and the Senators will be removed. A stability will be achieved, but it will be the stability that comes because the majority of voters are excluded from voting on most politicians as a result, and are thereby rendered impotent to vote for change.

One scenario is that the Deputies remain more or less with small constituencies that follow Parish boundaries, rather than clustering together in 4 or 5 larger constituencies. Then we can expect Chief Ministers and Ministers who have the support of a mandate of 1/33 of the electorate, rather than Island wise, and who - unlike Putin in Russia, or Obama in America - continue in office more or less indefinitely, because there are no restrictions on the number of terms of office.

After all, if Frank Walker or Terry Le Sueur had a safe Deputies seat in a smaller Parish, would they have needed to stand down rather than being trounced (as I am sure would have been the case) if they stood as Senators?

Incidentally, no one has raised the term of office of Chief Minister, and isn't this a golden opportunity to do so?

There are two things which any reform of the States needs to watch, which can mean that there is an apparent reform, without any substantial change possible in the States because of an increase in potential voter representation.

Both of these can be seen in America:

Rotten Boroughs

American State legislatures, which in this way scarcely vary from many other legislatures elsewhere, have often relied upon rotten boroughs and gerrymandering to preserve the existing proportions of seats or to increase the proportion of seats held by a single party or faction. Rotten boroughs are historical accidents that give disproportionate weight to the votes of a thinly populated district in relation to a thickly populated one, despite a rule requiring reapportionment. (2)

If Deputies districts are not increased enough, Parishes like St Mary will end up as "rotten borough"; as it stands it has a disproportionate vote in the States. People in such small districts can remain there for years, as the size of the district means any credible opposition is unlikely.

Gerrymandering

The usual objective of a gerrymander is to maximize the number of districts returning safe majorities for the apportioning group and to minimize the number of districts returning safe majorities for the opposition party or faction. The gerrymandering group seeks to draw district boundaries in a way that will concentrate its opponents' votes in as few districts as possible and will spread its own dependable majorities over as many districts as possible; or it seeks to disperse the majorities of its opponents and gather together its own partisans to create new majorities. (2)

The drawing up of borders if districts are made larger for Deputies may mean that they are grouped so as to disenfranchise the town in favour of the country. It is notable how in the Senatorial elections, there is an "election bounce" so that some candidates get more votes when the town districts cast their vote, and this can make a substantial difference. This is because the spread of different kinds of voters for Senatorials is far wider than for a smaller districts.

If more urban but rural districts such as St Brelade are combined with St Ouen and St Peter, this will lead to a wider spread of different kinds voters than, for instance, if St Brelade is one district, and St Ouen, St Peter and St Mary is another. There are possibilities for gerrymandering there, and it must be carefully guarded against.

Questions to Consider

Given a need for constituencies to have wider boundaries, what balance should be struck between trying to equalise electorates and trying to respect local geographical identities?

Should such a far-reaching review process be guided solely by the number of registered electors or by potential electors? There is a risk that urban areas, in which under-registration is heavily concentrated, may experience the greatest reductions in the number of seats - largely because of the challenges of getting certain social groups to register to vote.

Transparency

- The commission should provide the present and proposed boundaries maps on its website.
- To safeguard its recommendations the commission should provide a rationale for their recommendations.
- The commission should document its process, and maintain a record of all submissions made, a list of reviewed records, and interviews. This should be available for public scrutiny.

Review and the Future?

The proposed reforms should provide for regular review of the number of States members in each of the constituencies perhaps every 10 years to cater for population growth and migratory patterns. This should be be required by law - no longer at the executive's discretion - a periodic redistribution every twenty years, after the release of the census results, to be conducted by an independent commission.

The latter would be composed of people who were non-partisans; it would follow a rigid time schedule and consult the general public; and its recommended electoral map would have to be accepted as final by the Legislative Assembly.

Links
(1) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-17275398
(2) Apportionment and Representative Government. Alfred De Grazia, 1963