A Local Paxman?

Roger Bara morphs into Jeremy Paxman

I was amazed to hear Roger Bara on BBC Radio Jersey this morning giving Senator Philip Ozouf a sharp inquisition. It was a Jeremy Paxman style questioning - polite, but extremely persistent.

The good Senator thought he was being interviewed about the States economic measures, and also on States spending. He took refuge in one of his favourite words "efficiency", and Bara pressed him to say whether or not "efficiency" would mean job losses in the States, which is fair comment.

Ozouf, of course, tried to wriggle out of that one, saying that was not what he was talking about, and there were many aspects of making the States more efficient - the management of the property portfolio, buying strategies, etc, but giving no concrete details of any. Roger Bara commented that the best economic advice was not to add to redundancies in a recession, and then persisted with the question: in the short term, are there going to be redundancies for States employees? Can you answer that?

At one point, Senator Ozouf, who clearly hated having to give a straight answer, asked "I'm not sure where this interview is going." with a tone of voice that suggested that he clearly did! Eventually, he had to say that there would not be any job losses, but it was like drawing teeth, and I bet he hopes people forget this interview, which was not one of his best.

Pollardgate

When not on the subject of Mike Pollard's guitar lessons, and quite rightly avoiding them in a discussion on "Family-X", Roger also seemed a tad frosty. I've noticed how he greets his interviewees. If they are going to get a pretty easy time, or provide helpful and interesting comments, it is "A Very Good Morning to You." When it came to this morning's interview, it was "Good Morning to you" to Senator Ozouf - a warning sign, methinks, of things to come. But with Mike Pollard, it was just "Morning to you, Mr Pollard". Has anyone else noticed this?

But on the Guitar lessons - which as no one else has, I have called "Pollardgate, I love the way Bill Ogley and Terry le Sueur, without any irony, commented on Mr Pollard's claim:

There is, at this stage, no suggestion that Health chief Mike Pollard, who earns in excess of £150,000 a year, broke any rules or guidelines in claiming for the lessons. States chief executive Bill Ogley said that he was confident his senior colleagues would be shown to have behaved properly (1).

Answering questions in the States this morning chief minister Senator Terry Le Sueur told members the claim had been fully justified but admitted an error of judgment had occurred.(2)

Where have we heard that expenses claims where fully justified, but people were "very sorry"? Yes, the UK MPs' expenses scandal, where keeping within the boundaries of the law, "no rules were broken". It sounded like private Eye:

"It was all within the rules." The mantra repeated robotically by every MP, before the equally obligatory - "I am very sorry" - as the details of their abuse of taxpayers money has cashcaded into public view.(3)

Alan Le Breton, writing about the UK MP's scandal gives an example of the logic, and then states, with approval, Anne Widdecombe's excellent question:

A burglar caught breaking into a traumatised OAP's pad can say: 'I'm sorry, Guv, I'll come clean. I dunnit. Now, would it be OK if I admitted my mistake, pay back the money, I won't go to jail and everyone will forgive and trust me for ever again.'... Perhaps the most challenging rebuke to the cast of Westminster 'benefit cheats' gracing the roll of dishonour daily being unfurled in the newspapers, came from veteran Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe who, affecting ignorance, demanded: 'If you haven't done anything wrong, why are you paying back? And if you have done something wrong, why are you still in post?'(4)

It seems that Mr Le Breton has forgotten that Mike Pollard has also paid back the cost of his guitar lessons, and so that question applies to him as well - even though "he hasn't done anything wrong". Obviously £252 expenses claims are more of a minor misdemeanor than a sackable offense compared to the UK's catalogue of chandeliers, moats, gardening expenses, etc, but nonetheless if he is paying it back, he should at least receive a stern rebuke for this, and it would be interesting to know who "signed it off".

Links
(1) http://www.thisisjersey.com/2009/05/19/expenses-claim-paid-back/
(2) http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline_jerseynews/displayarticle.asp?id=418199
(3) Private Eye, No 1256, 15 May-28 May 2009
(4) http://www.thisisjersey.com/2009/05/20/some-really-sorry-examples/

Sewage Spillage in Jersey

I've just been listening to BBC Radio Jersey where a spokesman for Transport and Technical Services was explaining to the presenter that in very wet conditions, they have to let raw sewage seep into the bay, because even the cavern (a large storage area rather like a capacity) cannot cope with the overload.

There were several things not said, however....

I clearly remember an earlier explanation being given a few years ago, which I suspect is the right one, that the capacity of the pumping system from the West of the Island is not fast enough to take the increase in volume in raining weather. It functions in that respect rather like the road network, which has several feeder roads from Western and North-Western parishes all coming together into one road at Beaumont. I suspect the lack of capacity in flow is the real problem with the sewage system, and why it has either to be sent out to sea in such cases, or blow covers and go into Goose Green marsh.

The other matter, which is obvious, is that rain water runoff and the sewage network are combined. Extreme wet weather does not cause humans (as far as I am aware) to suddenly increase their use of the toilet, shower, bath etc - the culprit is the rainwater, and the fact that the system does not split the two. The more rainwater is set off on its own system, and discharged to sea, the less of a problem there would be. In the 1970s, there were inspections of properties in St Brelade to ascertain that this was the case, and presumably to try and rectify it. I don't know what happened to that survey and its aftermath, but nothing much seems to have been done. Perhaps we need a code, like that which is in force in Ohio (1)

1101.2 Where required. All roofs, paved areas, yards, courts and courtyards in buildings shall drain into a separate storm sewer system, or a combined sewer system, or to an approved place of disposal..

1101.3 Prohibited drainage. Storm water shall not be drained into sewers intended for sewage only.


But perhaps there are concerns that storm runoff may contain unacceptable levels of pollutants (from roads etc)? There are, and have been, modern ways of dealing with this that reduce the impact of storm rainwater's load on the system. There is a very good paper from 2003, called "EUROPEAN APPROACHES AGAINST DIFFUSE WATER POLLUTION CAUSED BY URBAN DRAINAGE" (2)  which deals with this, among other matters:

Storm water management

Storm water management concepts are combining unsealing of paved areas, infiltration of runoff from disconnected areas, storm water re-use, distributed retention, delayed transport and treatment (the latter to be described in the following subsection). The pressure to rethink conventional drainage systems and realise such modern concepts is due to mainly water quantity problems (insufficient hydraulic capacity of sewer systems as well as of streams and rivers) but also quality requirements. In the sense of sustainable development, ecological criteria are taken into account in these drainage concepts which are potentially much closer to nature than the traditional approach has been. The decentralised solutions (e.g. infiltration structures as main element) are used as best management practices (BMP) and are recently named 'sustainable
urban drainage system' (SUDS). Practical planning experience shows the necessity to involve drainage planners into town and traffic planning at an early stage because boundary conditions are fixed then which are very important for feasibility and efficiency of the local storm water management concept.

SUDS are a very popular topic in urban drainage in Germany. Beginning with first exemplary projects in the late 1980s which already include investigations of impacts on groundwater quality SUDS are now widely used in drainage planning. The approach is also beginning to be used more extensively in other European countries, e.g. in the UK, France and Switzerland as well as in the US and in Australia.

The first mentioned two elements of SUDS (unsealing and infiltration) as source control measures have a reduction effect on the runoff volume, the others an attenuation effect on the peak flows. Both effects are reducing the hydraulic stress for the receiving waters (disturbance of benthic fauna). Infiltration closes the natural water cycle by increasing the ground water feeding. Böhm et al. (1999) stated an efficient decrease of emissions of hazardous substances into receiving waters (especially heavy metals, nutrients only to a minor extent), but partly these loads are transferred to soils and wastes. Therefore measures at source are necessary in parallel (see sub-section 'Replacement of hazardous substances'). Additionally it is expected that the elimination efficiency of the existing treatment structures improves by 10-15 % in terms of pollutant load emissions due to the reduced inflow rates.

Links
(1) http://codes.ohio.gov/oac/4101:3-11
(2) http://www.ucd.ie/dipcon/docs/theme04/theme04_05.PDF

Star Trek and Klingon Antivirus from Sophos

The new Star Trek movie is brilliant, and cleverly so pitched as to appeal to a general audience, not just fans. It may help if you know that Mr Spock is the man with pointy ears from Vulcan, but that is about it!  It is set at a time when Kirk, Spock, Uhura, Scotty, Chekov and Sulu are all cadets, joining Star Trek, but the story steams forward at a fast pace, with lots of tension and excitement, so there is really no chance of the viewer being bored.

Without giving too much of the plot away, as far as fans are concerned, the plot involves time travel and changing the past (which is the movies "present") in such a way that the rest of official canonical continuity about what happens next is more or less wiped out. This is a clever move because it means that any sequels are not hamstrung by the "future" of the Shatner/Nimoy series, or any other series which came after that. Doctor Who's own revamp played a similar trick with its "Time War", which wiped out the Time Lords, and allowed a "reboot". After time, any long running series can be swamped by its own past, and continuity becomes obsessive at the expense of original stories; it appeals to a certain kind of fan, but can lose touch with a general audience - who are "out of the loop", and do not want to need to know all the long and convoluted background material. As with Doctor Who, the Star Trek film has sly little homages to the television shows, and the previous movies, but these are a plus for the fan who will notice them, and not to the detriment of the story (as happened with the 1980s Doctor Who of Peter Davison and Colin Baker, or Star Trek - Enterprise). Instead, these are subtle, such as the team member in red who joins Kirk and Sulu for a skydive; you know that, as in the original series when Kirk, Spock and a crewmember beam down, that person is surplus to requirements and will meet a sticky end!

The effects are good, but unlike the first Star Trek The Motion Picture, they don't get in the way or slow down the story telling - that film had endless slow and ponderous effects shots. The costumes reflect the originals in colour, but have been modernised slightly, and the bridge has the same structure, but is a much larger, lighter structure; it is a good re-imagining of the Star Trek ship's bridge for a modern audience's expectations. But the story and characters drive the movie, amd Chris Pine as Kirk and Zachary Quinto as Spock are especially good, capturing the nuance of the originals very well, but without mimicry. It is a Star Trek to capture a new audience, and please an existing one, and it has succeeded extremely well!

On the subject of Star Trek, Sophos actually (this is not a joke!) produced a version  of Sophos Antivirus in Klingon, which must be a first! The details, and a download link, are on Graham Cluhey's Blog. Cluhey and the Sophos team are obviously Star Trek fans, as evidenced by their April fool - the Shatner virus which infected Satellite systems with a subliminal messages

IT security and control firm Sophos has discovered that hackers have successfully infected an orbiting communications satellite with a virus, and are interfering with television broadcasts.

The Far Polo L1 satellite, placed in geostationary orbit to broadcast TV programs to a global audience, appears to have been infected by a virus known as W32/Shatner. Under the control of sci-fi obsessed hackers, the Shatner virus is embedding subliminal images related to Star Trek into popular television programs such as "The Simpsons", "Friends" and "Doogie Howser MD" as they are beamed down to viewers on Earth.

http://www.sophos.com/blogs/gc/g/2009/04/01/shatner-virus-planted-hackers-orbiting-satellite/

Anyhow, here is the story behind the Klingon Antivirus product. See the link if you want to download it!

1) From time-to-time Sophos looks into creating bespoke software for particular groups, rather than make them available to the masses. We were asked by a potential customer to investigate whether it was possible to translate our software into Klingon, and Klingon Anti-Virus was produced as a test by our techies. Although the software is finished it wasn't supposed to have been made available to the world at large - some of you have noticed that of the text on the webpage was unfinished. We've fixed that now, and added some additional information.
2) We translated the software with help from naHQun, a member of the Klingon Language Institute (KLI). I'm sure those of you with a good knowledge of the language will agree that naHQun (who also goes by the name of "Michael") did a great job.
3) As the Klingon Anti-Virus software is being widely linked to, we're not going to remove it for now. You can still grab a copy if you like.
4) Which might well upset some people. Because earlier today Sophos received a rather hard-nosed communication from a certain party seemingly trying to bully us into removing the Klingon Anti-Virus software from our site. We think that's daft, so we won't be doing it.

http://www.sophos.com/blogs/gc/g/2009/05/19/klingon-antivirus-facts/

Waste Matters

Daniel Wimberley has been asking some interesting questions about waste:

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES BY THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY

Question: "Can the Minister inform the Assembly how much non-inert waste the Transport and Technical Services Department dealt with in 2008, with the detail of the different types of waste, and the comparable figures for the previous year?"
 
Answer: The total amount of non-inert waste that the Transport and Technical Services Department dealt with in 2008 was 103,231 tonnes compared to 106,587 tonnes in 2007 as detailed below:

For the details - go to http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/questions/19429-19532-1952009.htm

A summary breakdown is shown below. I've added percentages to the data.

 

		2007	2008	% change
Recyclable waste		32,377.00	30,747.00	5.30%
Non-Recyclable		74,210.00	72,484.00	2.38%
Total		106,587.00	103,231.00	3.25%

It shows that while there has been a reduction in non-inert waste, most of this has been at the expense of the recyclables, which - perhaps because of the economic downturn - have not been as good a figure in 2008 as 2007.

This is reflected in my other table, which shows how the amount of recyclable waste as a percentage of the whole has shifted downwards.

 

% Total
Recyclable waste		30.38%	29.78%
Non-Recyclable		69.62%	70.22%
Total		100.00%	100.00%

Frank Field: An Honest Politician

Frank Field, an MP whom I have always admired for his openness, has been the first MP (and probably the only one) to publish all of his expenses as an MP in PDF files, nothing missing.

The Liverpool Daily Post went through these, and was probably very pleased to find something to criticise.

THE taxpayer footed the bill not once but twice for an MP's shoe repairs. The website of Frank Field, MP for Birkenhead, reveals in 04/05 he received £26.50 under the additional cost allowance for having his shoes repaired. Claim forms posted on his official site also showed he again had his shoes mended as part of a £200 miscellaneous claim in January 2006. The claim also covered the cost of gardening and unnamed medicines (1)

When you consider he has expenses from 2004-2008, and that was all they could find, he comes out of it looking rather well compared to other MPs! Anyone can also look at them. I recommend doing so. Frank says:

I have published my expense claims from the last four years.  These claims cover the communications, ACA and IEP allowances. The Green Book contains the definitions and it can be found here.  The blocked out areas in the scans do not hide purchases, but are to protect sensitive information like bank account numbers, addresses and telephone numbers. The only redactions added by this office are to cover examples of this type of information missed by the Fees Office - (4 in total). (2)

On his blog he also outlines the reforms he would like to see:

The Speaker needs to announce immediate measures governing all allowances while awaiting the Kelly Commission on Standards in Public Life to report. All expenses from the beginning of this financial year should go online, the moment they have been agreed by the fees office. A slim-line Additional Cost Allowance should be announced with the clearest of guidelines outlining what can be claimed - not what cannot be claimed. The Communications Allowance should be abolished, no allowances should be used for supposed "services" received from local parties, and MPs should be forbidden to allow their local parties to use their offices in the constituencies.(3)

Some people are suggesting he could be the next Speaker. I certainly think he would be a good choice. He also has a keen idea of how much government should represent, not the just wishes of the party, but also the views of the voters, and strengthening the link between the electorate and government, something which is as much needed in Jersey as in the UK.

Party discipline is crucial to delivering a government that is responsible and accountable to the electorate. But the current whipping system is way out of proportion to what is necessary to achieve this crucial objective. It needs to be relaxed with respect to the details of bills so that the views of voters can be registered effectively in parliament. (4)

Links:
(1) http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2009/05/18/mp-s-expenses-taxpayer-foots-the-bill-for-birkenhead-mp-frank-field-s-shoe-repairs-92534-23647176/
(2) http://www.frankfield.com/
(3) http://www.frankfield.com/blog/
(4) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6302067.ece

Bridget Murphy and The Bible: The Old Testament

http://www.thisisjersey.com/2009/05/14/authoritative-account-of-people/

Letter to the JEP, From Bridget Murphy.

The Bible is an authoritative, historical account of people and events which addresses the spiritual dimensions of man and his universe.....

Of course we all know authoritative history when we see it - it is stories with talking serpents, or talking donkeys (Balaam's ass), sticks turning into snakes (Moses and Pharaoh's magicians), or the sun standing still (Joshua)- and somehow everyone not spinning off into space, or stalactites being fractured.

But, sarcasm apart, the Old Testament, if we are honest, is not "authoritative history". It is a mixture of poetry, proverbs or sayings, legends, folklore, which may in places - for instance the part known by Biblical critics as the "Court History of King David" - have a historical core. But most of it is not authoritative history. It is a collection of sources, which for religious and political reasons, have been edited and harmonised so that they appear on first reading to be one whole. In fact, when you look closely at the details, they differ. For example:

1.      In Genesis 1:1-26, God created plants on the third day and fish and birds on the fifth day. On the sixth day, He created animals and man.
2.      In Genesis 2:7-25, God created man first. Then He created plants. Then, for man to have company, God created animals and birds. And finally, God created woman.

The two stories have different sequences of steps of creation.  The first version always spoke of  "God" ("Elohim") . The second version always speaks of "Yahweh" eleven times. There is no mixing of the names of God, which leads to the supposition, usually referred to as the "documentary hypothesis", that together with the differences in sequence, and the differences in the kind of Hebrew used, what we have in fact are two different sources, two tales that have been welded together by a later editor. The two sources are usually referred to
here as the "Priestly Source" or P and the "Yahwist source" or J. Four main sources have been discerned in the first five books of the bible, in shorthand termed: J (Yahwist), E (Elohist), P (Priestly),  and D (Deuteronomic). In terms of the Hebrew used, the kind of Hebrew used is also related to source and age, which is lost in translation - but think of a book composed of bits of Chaucerian English, Shakespearian English, Victorian English and Modern English. Translated to French, these would be smoothed out, but in their own language, the differences would be quite clear: so it is with the Old Testament.

The same kind of contradictions occur with the flood story: P says that the flood lasted for almost one year (Genesis 7:11, 7:24, 8:3, and 8:13). J says that it lasted for forty days and forty nights (Genesis 7:17).

When the sources are broken apart, the contradictions disappear because they are only an outcome of the editing together by a later redactor of the different sources, each of which was self-consistent in its own right.
Richard Elliott Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible" is probably the best modern book which explains these sources and shows how the different communities used them.

Some of the natural history is as accurate as Pliny (who thought that garlic demagnetizes lodestones). For example, Leviticus says that hares and coneys are unclean because they "chew the cud" but do not part the hoof. But hares and coneys are not ruminants and they do not "chew the cud.". Likewise, bats are taken as birds. These errors are repeated in Deuteronomy. Not very authoritative as a work of natural history!

Harcourt in Irish Press

More on Harcourt, this time reaching the Irish Press.

 

Note the second article states that:

 

"However, actions on breach of contract, breach of fiduciary responsibility, good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and derivative claims have yet to be decided."

 

The States of Jersey are still on course for Harcourt developing the Waterfront, if they can come up with a bond. But should anything be decided with regard to Harcourt while these claims and counterclaims continue, and have done so for over a year, and Harcourt has still not cleared its name completely?

 

http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=IRELAND-qqqm=news-qqqid=41813-qqqx=1.asp

 

Sunday, May 17, 2009  By Ian Kehoe
Dublin property firm Harcourt Developments has said that it lost tens of millions of dollars on a US property deal after falling victim to an elaborate fraud involving ''sham condominium sales'' and fictitious front companies.

The Irish firm has also alleged that its former business partner in the US, Glen Smith &Glen (GSG), conspired to lie about the pace of a proposed $1 billion development in Las Vegas and made ''multiple poor decisions'' that resulted in Harcourt losing more than $20 million. The allegations are contained in court documents lodged with the Eighth Judicial District Court in Nevada last week, copies of which have been obtained by The Sunday Business Post.

 

Harcourt, headed by Irish businessman Pat Doherty, and GSG are involved in a long running dispute stemming from the proposed $1 billion development in Las Vegas called Sullivan Square. The two companies entered into a joint venture to build the development, but the deal has since collapsed.

GSG has launched a series of court proceedings against the Irish firm, large parts of which have since been thrown out of court. Last week, Harcourt lodged a counterclaim, and made a string of new allegations against its one-time business partner.

Harcourt is claiming that GSG entered into a exclusive agreement with a local property sales company. However, Harcourt alleges that this company never existed and was merely a false front for the president of GSG, Ken Smith, and his wife.

Harcourt states this relationship was never disclosed.

''These non-disclosures and false representations were made to obtain money from Sullivan Square and Harcourt Nevada based on sham sales," the counterclaim states.

Harcourt claims that GSG overpaid an earth removal contract by $9.5 million, and overspent its ''soft cost'' allowance by $15.5million.Harcourt said that GSG lied about the pace of condominium sales and failed to obtain risk insurance.

Harcourt said that GSG ''continued its incompetent and futile management efforts and exhausted the entire $41 million pre-construction budget for the project," according to the counterclaim.

The Sullivan Square project was to include 1,300 apartments, office buildings, a 1.5acre park and 25 shops just six miles from the Las Vegas strip.

The company behind the development, Sullivan Square Harcourt LLC, was a 60/40 joint-venture partnership between Harcourt and GSG.

 

http://www.tribune.ie/business/article/2009/may/17/harcourt-was-misled-over-us-condo-plan/

 

Harcourt Developments, one of the largest property development companies in Ireland, has sensationally alleged that its partners in a $1bn Las Vegas development made false representations to persuade it that the scheme was viable.

Harcourt Developments is led by Pat Doherty.

In a counterclaim lawsuit filed at Nevada's Clark County District Court, Harcourt claims that Glen, Smith Glen Development (GSG), a US development company, knowingly misrepresented the pace of sales for a $1bn dollar condominium development at Sullivan Square in Las Vegas.

The lawsuit claims that GSG entered into an exclusive listing agreement with a company called Viridian Group, which it says never existed and was a "false front" for GSG founding partner Ken Smith and his wife.

Harcourt alleges that GSG and Viridian claimed to have sold 100 of the 1,300 condominiums planned but that in reality only 92 "hard contracts" were secured and that in some cases deposits taken on properties were as low as $100.

Sometimes brokers' fees paid exceeded the low deposits received and Smith and his wife were in receipt of such payments, it alleges.

The Sullivan Square development was to include two 20-storey towers and low-rise buildings with apartments selling for up to $1.8m (€1.3m).

In its suit, Harcourt says that bad decisions by GSG and pace of sales cost the project tens of millions of dollars. As a result, even if the first phase of the development went ahead and sold out at the prices advertised, it would not be profitable, the counter suit claims.

Saul Wolf of law firm Manly Stewart which represents GSG has strongly refuted the allegations and said that GSG intends to file a motion to dismiss the counterclaim at the earliest opportunity.

He said the Viridian Group was well established prior to the initiation of the deal, remains in existence under another name, and that Harcourt was aware of its relationship between the company and GSG.

All GSG budgetary decisions were signed off on by Harcourt representatives, he claimed.

"We believe that there is absolutely no merit to this counterclaim and that it is another delaying tactic... We intend to fight this claim and will seek to dismiss it as soon as we can," he said.

The claim is in response to a lawsuit initiated by GSG last December which alleged that Harcourt had never intended to follow through on the development deal and was conspiring to bankrupt its partners in order to assume full control of the project.

Much of that claim – including allegations of consumer fraud, negligence and intentional interference and conspiracy – was dismissed by Judge Mark Denton.

However, actions on breach of contract, breach of fiduciary responsibility, good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and derivative claims have yet to be decided.

A spokesman for the Harcourt Group was unavailable for comment.

May 17, 2009

 

Ink: A Fishy Tale

Ink: A Fishy Tale
 
This is the tale of a squid called Sebastian, who ran out of ink. He called in his friend, Archibald,. who was an octopus, and asked him to buy some more ink from the printers.
 
So along went Archibald. "That will be 67 pence." said the shopkeeper, as he handed over the bottle of sea blue ink. Archibald got out his wallet, counted out the money, and handed it over.
 
But, at the end of the day, when the printer counted up his change, he found he was short by 12 pence. "I've been robbed." he cried!
 
A Mock Turtle from the local constabulary was called in, but entertained grave doubts as to whether Archibald really was a thief. "I was at school with the old fellow," he said, "and he never could get the hang of the different branches of Arithmetic."
 
As everyone knows, the different branches of Arithmetic are Ambition, Distraction, Uglification and Derision.
 
But was the Mock Turtle right about Archibald? Or is his information just a red herring?

Weasel Words: "Politicise"

To "politicise" is often used as a shorthand term of abuse by politicians. I have heard one local politician complain that "The whole matter of childcare has become politicised", or words very similar, and using the dreaded "p" word. I have a strong intuition that if the word was banned, it would actually make politicians think more clearly about what they want to say, rather than reaching for lazy language.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "politicise" has two extant meanings. One is "to engage in or talk about politics", the other is "to make political, or politically aware".

For examples of the first - Horace Walpole in 1758 wrote "But while I am politicizing, I forget to tell you half the purport of my letter". Thomas Carlyle, writing in 1841 on heroes noted that "Burns could have governed, debated in National Assemblies; politicised, as few could.". And in the modern period, only in 1991, Roy Jenkins wrote that "Between holidays I also wrote as well as politicised in those early 1960s years."

For the second, In 1776 Stahlberg, in his history of Sweden, noted that "Those who, in their sermons, inveighed against public crimes, were said to politicise" - that is, bring this matter to the public (political) arena. This is closer to the modern usage, but we must be careful not to read back modern meanings into that text (- commonly known in semantics as the "illegitimate totality fallacy")

Neither really sums up the way in which "politicise "is often used - which I think could be better described as "to make personal political capital out of an issue"(my own definition). In that sense, it might be correct, but the case has to be proven, and often just using the word "politicise" is taken as proof that someone is doing this.

Senator Stuart Syvret, for example, has been accused of "politicising" the situation at Haut de la Garenne by former Chief Minister Frank Walker  which in this context means more "use for political advantage". Equally, Senator Syvret has accused the Bailiff and Attorney-General of becoming "politicised".

Here it functions very like a variant on "ad hominem" argument, which consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

It may take longer, and involve more words, but I think that rather than use a word which has become often more of a "mud-slinging" accusation, it would be better if it were dropped completely, rather than used as a very lazy and often very sloppy shorthand.

 

Isn't "Common Sense" wonderful?

No liquids, no gels, no sharp items and no books with images of guns on board this flight . . .That is exactly what bank worker Carolyn Burgess (58), of St Brelade, was told as she was stopped by security for trying to take her paperback on board a plane from Heathrow to Japan. As Mrs Burgess placed her Robert B Parker novel, A Triple Shot of Spenser, onto the security tray she had it snatched away from her because it ‘might upset passengers’ on the plane. It had the image of a handgun on the front....A spokesman for BAA said: ‘In certain circumstances, a passenger carrying an item which features an image or slogan that could be perceived as aggressive may be asked to cover it up or remove it. Security officers are advised to use common sense when making these requests.’ (1)

How easy is it to hold up a plane with a book with a pistol on the front? I've heard that "the pen is mighter than the sword", but that is ridiculous. What would you threaten - "This is a stick-up. If you don't do exactly what I say I will give you all the pages from my Jeffery Archer." Might you, that could be a frightening thought. Or what about an origami book - "Make it yourself: The paper pistol. Fires paper bullets"? Actually, there really are instructions for how to do this (2)! Perhaps any paper should also be conviscated?



They were in the end fine with the book provided that it went in the hold with the rest of the luggage, so the poor lady had nothing to read during the flight. But at least she could put her book in the hold. What would she have done if it sported a cover like this? With the application of "common sense" that they had already displayed, would they put a book with a bomb on its cover in the baggage compartment?








Links

(1) http://www.thisisjersey.com/2009/05/14/airports-novel-anti-terror-move/

(2) http://www.origami-instructions.com/origami-gun.html

The Curious Incident of the Vote in the Daytime

I've just been looking at the report - "BREACH OF PRIVILEGE: IN CAMERA DEBATE"

It notes that:

The Committee agreed that it would be helpful to research the position in other jurisdictions and the Greffier of the States was requested to contact colleagues in other Commonwealth jurisdictions for advice. In addition, the Committee discussed the matter on 27th February 2009 with the Bailiff as President of the States.

So far, so good. But of course there is a problem. As the report notes: "It can be noted that other parliaments virtually never sit in camera and had therefore to seek parallels with other matters, the most common being the premature leak of committee reports or the disclosure of confidential committee proceedings."

But is that a fair comparison? I think it is clutching at straws to try to find something which will fit, and it overlooks the greater question: should the States Assembly be carried on "behind closed door", or should it be transparent and open, as befits a democracy.

After all, the appendix notes that, in Australia, "In response to your inquiry, I advise that the Australian Senate has never met in private session". The Clerk of the Australian House of Representatives says that: "The basic premise of all our meetings is that the Parliament conducts its meetings, with the rarest exceptions, in public. There have been secret sessions, during war times, when Hansard reporters were excluded. However, the clerks and Members remained in the secret sessions."

When it comes to Canada, a similar picture emerges - the  Clerk of the Senate of Canada notes that "In modern practice, the Senate no longer meets in camera, although in theory it remains possible." With regard to the other chamber, "The Canadian House of Commons has sat in camera only a very few times and not since World War II. As well, we do not have any specific Standing Order dealing with the disclosure of in camera information."

Not surprisingly, the Clerk of the Journals, UK House of Commons, does not know of any post-war occasion when the House has sat "in camera."

But what about smaller jurisdictions? The Cayman Islands gets a brief mention, but Bermuda does not. Again with Parliamentary or Senate debates, according to the Executive Aide to the Premier (who was very helpful) there is no provision for sitting in camera, and on the contrary, they are all broadcast live on radio. Even the committee meetings are due to be opened to the public.

Yet the really curious incident in this report is that there is no response from Guernsey, or if there was a response, somehow it did not make its way into the appendix. Why could this be?

David J. Robilliard, the Principal Officer of the States Assembly and Constitution Committee of Guernsey was good enough to tell me that:

1.    There is no provision in the Rules of Procedure of the States of Deliberation for the holding of in camera meetings.

2.    I cannot recall such a meeting ever having been held.

Why is Jersey so much out on a limb? The question which should be asked is why there should be - in a modern democracy - "in camera" debates in the first place, not about issues of whether their secrecy should be breached. Quite clearly, as far as the world wide practice goes - even for our neighbouring Island of Guernsey - this practice simply does not happen. When the elected representatives meet to decide and debate in the Chamber, whether a unicameral or bicameral Government, there is never any question of keeping matters secret from the electorate.

Perhaps it is about time the whole principle was reconsidered, both with regard to the Chief Officer of Police - clearly not a problem in Guernsey - and other matters, such as the debate over Pierre Horsfall's position continuing as Chairman of WEB. If Guernsey can manage without this kind of secrecy, why can't we?

Links:
http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/reports/42812-6413-1642009.pdf

Voting Records - Deputy Robert Duhamel

In this occasional series, I shall be looking at the voting records of States members, in particular to see if any patterns emerge, and where they stand on issues of justice, fairness and the environment.

Rob Duhamel is clearly a very environmentally conscious States member. The votes are consistently in favour of environmental issues, and against schemes like the incinerator. It should be also remembered that in past years, when he headed a scrutiny panel, he also arranged for speakers to come over and talk to the general public on these matters (free meetings, advertised in the JEP), to engage with and raise public awareness of environmental matters. Despite words said against him by Stuart Syvret (on his blog), Duhamel voted for the proposition to investigate the dumping of toxic ash. He is perhaps lower key than some environmentalists in the States, and in the last election, did not align himself with the loose group of Green candidates; nevertheless, his voting pattern shows himself to be a Green. Interestingly, with regard to Jersey's heritage, he voted against the importation of bovine semen.

With regard to justice and fairness, he voted in favour of the motions regarding payments made on the redundancy of Woolworth's employees, for the case of Reg's Skips and also for a review of customary law. Customary law is not codified, and it is almost completely inaccessible to the general public; moreover, as the case of Reg's skips showed, obscure parts like "voisinage" can be deployed in ways which while not illegal, nevertheless are of dubious morality as they circumvent occasions when Statutory Law and procedures have produced the opposite result. He also voted for the Gender recognition law. Again - with regard to democratic safeguards - he voted against the proposals to edit names out of Hansard, thus restricting the public's right to know all that has happened in the States. He also voted for a reform of the "suspension" procedures which are currently totally inequitable as they give the suspended individual virtually no right of appeal or redress until action has been taken, and there is no time limit on that.

Both now and in the past, he has consistently voted against any exemptions for GST, and certainly made no promises before the last election that he would change his mind - voters were not being mislead.

I have not put down no confidence votes - Chief Minister, Bailiff etc - which he has general voted against. If this shows anything, it shows he considers a no confidence vote to be a serious matter, not worthy of being trivialized, which could well be argued was the case.

I was disappointed that he did not support Bob Hill's proposal to increase question time, but 90 minutes is a fairly long time, and perhaps he thought the time could be better used for debates on legislation.

To sum up: certainly a strong Green candidate, one who takes environmental matters seriously, and also committed to a fairer society and democratic accountability.

Voted in favour

Suspension of States employees and States of Jersey Police Officers: revised procedures, as amended. This was Bob Hill's proposal to improve how suspensions are dealt with - regular reviews, and not left "in limbo".

Geoff Southern's proposition to debate the arrest and detention of Senator Stuart Syvret and associated matters( paragraphs a to d) .

Geoff Southern's proposition for an early debate about Stuart Syvret and the police action.

Ben Shenton's proposition regarding Reg's Skips and Voisinage - Ex gratia compensation payment: Mr. and Mrs. R. Pinel.

Phil Rondel's proposal for Ministerial government: review.

Geoff Southern's proposition regarding Woolworths employees: Payment of Statutory Notice payments: establishment of precedent, as amended

Geoff Southern's proposition regarding redundancies: Payment of Statutory Notice Payments: establishment of precedent (P.34/2009)

Ben Shenton's proposal for review of customary : Voisinage and customary law

Daniel Wimberley's proposition on the incinerator: Energy from Waste facility: rescindment (as amended)

Bob Hills' proposition for a review Role of the unelected members of the States: review, as amended (Crown Officers, including the Bailiff)

Geoff Southern's proposition to pay Woolworths ex-employees: Woolworths employees: payment of statutory notice periods

Chief Minister's proposition: Draft Gender Recognition (Jersey) Law 200- principles and Articles

Freddie Cohen (Planning) proposition regarding Integrated Coastal Zone Management Strategy

Jim Perchard's proposition that the whole States should be party to approval of any signing of the Waterfront Masterplan deal with developers.

Committee of Inquiry - Toxic Incinerator Ash Dumping in the St. Helier Waterfront Land Reclamation Schemes

Stuart Syvret's proposition: Committee of Inquiry - Toxic Incinerator Ash Dumping in the St. Helier Waterfront Land Reclamation Schemes

Paul Le Clare: Planning and Environment - division into 2 ministerial offices

Draft Public Elections (Election expenses and donations) (Jersey) Regulations 200-Principles

School milk - continued funding

Voted against

Bob Hills' proposal on Question Time: Oral Questions with notice: extension to 2 hours - to agree that Standing Orders 13 and 63 should be amended to extend the current 90 minutes allowed for oral questions with notice from 90 minutes to 2 hours

Carolyn Labey's proposal for exemptions on GST: Goods and Services Tax: exemption or zero-rating for foodstuffs and domestic energy (Paragraph (a)(i)-food

Carolyn Labey's proposal for exemptions on GST: Goods and Services Tax: exemption or zero-rating for foodstuffs and domestic energy (paragraph (a)(ii)-domestic energy

Juliet Gallichan's PPS proposition to edit out names from Hansard where deemed "appropriate": Draft Amendment (No. 10) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey.

Chief Minister's proposition: Draft Gender Recognition (Jersey) Law 200- -Amendment to allow clergy to opt out of solemnizing marriages.

Constable of St Ouen's proposition: Plemont Holiday Village site - negotiations for purchase

Council of Ministers: Draft European Communities Legislation (Implementation) (Bovine Semen) (Jersey) Regulations 200- Principles - this ended the ban on the import of non-Jersey cows.

Guy de Faye's Energy from Waste Facility - establishment and acceptance of tender

Picking on Pensioners

Pensioners in Jersey may lose their free bus passes. The scheme that entitles 60-year-old women and 65-five year old men to travel free of charge on the island's buses could be scrapped. Confidential discussions about the scheme have been taking place at ministerial level. But Jersey politician, Senator Ben Shenton says to deny old age pensioners the right to free travel would be a mistake. The Chair of Age Concern Daphnie Minihane says it's vital that the island's old age pensioners have access to a free bus pass to get around the island. She says if that privilege was revoked it would be yet another attack on the island's elderly (1)

This is the new way to get around the promise not to raise taxes - to cut back on free or subsidised services instead. The next step is to bring in more "user pays" stealth taxes - although, of course, they will not be called taxes! It is another burden on the retired population, which - in a year in which the credit crunch bites, not least with rising electricity costs - can be seen as a cheap way of making savings at the expense of a part of the population whose protests can be safely ignored - easy targets for cutbacks.

For some people - and I know a pensioner who fits this category - driving is not an option, and although they own their own house (and are thereby not eligible for income support), there are repairs, rates, rising costs to meet out of their income - their pension-  and not their capital which is tied up in bricks and mortar. In this case, this proposal is just the same as a reduction in pensions.

My mother is a pensioner who has a car which she uses for shopping trips to the supermarket in St Brelade. If she is going in to St Helier, most often she will take the bus - as will her husband who does not drive - because it is a free service for pensioners. I suspect their case is fairly typical.

But there is also an environmental aspect to this. Because they take the bus much more, this means less traffic on the road, less pollution in the atmosphere, less wear and tear on the roads. It is the eco-friendly option. Do we really want to drive people away from buses and back to cars?

There will probably be proposals to allow bus passes if they are means tested, and to understand the indignity to the elderly (and the cumbersome apparatus) of form filling and means testing, I have my own proposal: I think States remuneration should also be means tested, which will still mean "no one will be disadvantaged if they cannot afford it", but will save the taxpayer money if they can!

Links:

(1) http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline%5Fjerseynews/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=416065

Jersey Workers - The Victorian Age to the Great War

Here, as promised, is another transcript from Norman Le Brocq's history of the working class in Jersey. For those who were born after 1971, as with England, Jersey had a monetary system of pounds, shillings and pence. Within this system:

£1 = 20 shillings (sometimes written as 20s or 20/-)
1 shilling (1/-) = 12 pence (written as 12 d).

So 15/6 = 15s 6 d which would be 15 shillings and 6 pence.

Coins came in crowns (5/- coins somewhat rare), half crowns (2/6), florins (two shillings), shillings, sixpenny pieces, threepenny pieces (pronounced "thru-penny", pennies, half-pence (also called ha'pennies) , and farthings. Notes included not just £1 and greater but also 10/- (ten shilling notes). Sometimes items would be priced in "guineas", which was equivalent to £1 1s. I still remember ten shilling notes and half pence coins, although farthings had ceased to be legal tender by that time.

A moment's thought will show that the old pence were not equivalent to today's decimal currency, introduced in 1971. In fact 6 d would be the equivalent of 2 1/2 p, and 1 shilling would be 5 pence.

When looking at prices though, bear in mind the inflation that has taken place, and note how Norman Le Brocq places prices of food etc in comparison with wages.

If you really want to see what it means in terms of today's prices, Mark Forskitt has very cleverly done all the hard work for you! Read Norman's history first, then go to
http://st-ouennais.livejournal.com/59104.html

This story continues just after the bread riots:

---

The Jersey worker was forced into the above violent method of making himself heard because of the lack of interest taken in him by the island authorities. He was beginning to realise that until he made his presence felt no notice would be taken of his sufferings. The Jacobin clubs and " corresponding societies" did not touch the island and the Owenite and Chartist movements passed it by.

The local politicians were divided into "Charlots" (=Carlist) or. Conservatives, and "Maggots" (-baboons; slang. For plebeians) or Liberals, and later into "Rose" and "Laurel", the equivalent of the English "Whig" and "Tory". Neither of these bothered their heads about " the rabble." In fact there was really no political strife between these " parties," for all the elections were run on individual merits and not on party programmes. Apart from this, out of the 36 members of the States Assembly prior to 1857, twelve were the Rectors of the parishes who were not elected, while twelve more, the Jurats, though elected, were members for life. Only the Constables were elected at regular intervals. After 1857, 14 deputies elected on a very limited franchise found a place in the Assembly. (This number was later increased to seventeen.)

After 1857, then, out of 50 (and later 53) members of the Assembly, 12 were clergymen, while at least 22 (11 each of the Constables and Deputies) represented the farmers. This excludes the Jurats, who may have been elected by a preponderant country vote. Of course there was no hope of the working man getting any representation in the Assembly, and indeed at this time very little chance of the town businessman being represented.

This latter fact is not so important as it at first seems, for the local bourgeoisie had been largely of a special type. This is the farmer-company director. The importance of this class seems peculiar to these islands. They are farmers who have " gone into business" while still owning and often managing their farms. The directors of most local firms in the nineteenth century were of this type and of one other: the lawyer. Not that there is any real dividing line between these two groups, for the lawyers' offices are supplied with clerks-and therefore with lawyers and advocates-in the form of the farmers' younger sons.

So we may say that until the turn of the century, at any rate, the farmer ruled the island aided by the clergy and the feudal seigneurs.

The feudal seigneur? To understand the part he played we must remember that during the nineteenth century Jersey was still in a pre-capitalist state of society. Feudalism was still a force in the island with its staunchly Conservative tradition. This tradition still. exists and goes far deeper than party politics. It is the foundation of all local life. The Jerseyman's motto
has long been and still is: " What was good enough for my grand-father is good enough for my son."

On the subject of feudal remains in the island society of that day I will quote a contemporary historian:

"The feudal rights which still exist in Jersey, the many fiefs or seigneuries which still share the soil of our parishes, the seigneural judges or seneschals who still judge according to ancient custom, all that is the phantom which I have just mentioned, all that appears alive and strong, all that frightens and makes dupes of us; and yet it is nothing but a mist that one puff of wind can dispel...It is to he hoped that before long Jersey will be freed of all these feudal remains which were never reasonable, and which only continue to exist through the apathy of those who suffer under them." (J.P. Ahier, Tableaux Historiques de Jersey 1852, translation)

And it was not only the educated historian who saw the need for the abolition of the remaining feudal rights. Two mass meetings were held, one in 1843 and the other in 1858, calling for abolition. At the 1843 meeting, one Elie Le Geyt proposed:-

"Mr. Chairman, in France all seigneural rights have been abolished; it should be the same in this country. As for me, I think the parishes of this island should buy all the fiefs, so that they would enjoy for a year and a day the property of those who die without heirs of their own flesh and blood, until all feudal rights are abolished. (Applause.)

"The Chairman replied that if Mr. Le Geyt's suggestion was put into practice, it would greatly benefit all the inhabitants of this land." (Applause.)

Notice this reference to France. This points to the fact that in those days the islander was far more aware of how matters stood in that neighbouring land than of what was happening in England. Those were the days of the Charter; but the people of Jersey knew it not.

The arrival of the refugees of 1852 carried on this Jersey-French link. These refugees fleeing from the coup d'état of Louis Napoleon included many prominent men of whom the best known was Victor Hugo. They founded a paper L'Homme, which appears to have been widely read in the island and had some effect on local politics, Off course, this and the Jersey Constitutional Reform Association set up in 1861 had very little to say for the " rabble "; neither was the paper Reforme of 1853 nor the magazine Le Voix des Iles of the seventies of more than a progressive liberal nature.

The local worker, after his effort of 1847, remained quiet. His living conditions were terrible while the general prosperity of the island was often remarked upon. Yet he sullenly bore his lot.

That his lot was not a happy one can be shown by the following hypothetical budget showing wages and prices as they stood about the middle of the nineteenth century. These remained much the same right up till the turn of the century. The wage of a labourer of that time was normally 12/6, thought it rose to the height of 15/- in individual cases.

Out of his 12/6 he could buy:

Rent	2/0
Bread (12 lb.)	3/0
Dripping (2lb)	7d
Meat (2 lb.).	10d
Vegetables (including potatoes)	1/6
Coal and candles or oil for lighting	1/0
Beer, Tea, Sugar, Salt, etc.	1/0
Milk (3 pints)	3d
Soap	2d
Sundries (including all clothing)	1/8
Total:	12/6

It will be remarked that he is just on or below the subsistence level. Should any calamity-such as illness-strike his family his wage could not cover it. He lived on cheap and often bad food. It is not astonishing that there were two serious epidemics of cholera in 1832 and 1849.

It is interesting to notice the terms of an indenture of a blacksmith's apprentice of the year 1871. Amongst other instructions the indenture ordered that : " During all which time (six years) he, the said apprentice, his said master shall and will faithfully serve, his secrets keep, his lawful commands everywhere gladly obey, and diligently and carefully demean and behave himself towards him... He shall not commit fornication, nor contract matrimony, within the said term. At cards, dice tables, or any other unlawful game, he shall not play. He shall not haunt ale-houses, taverns, playhouses, or any other places of debauchery; but in all thins behave himself during the said term, as a good and faithful apprentice ought to do."

And all this for one shilling per week with an increase of sixpence per week each year.

These were those idyllic years of the reign of Queen Victoria in so far as the local worker knew them. As one person who lived through these years told me: the worker spent his wage on rent, food and rags, there was nothing left over for anything else.

By 1889 the local worker was beginning to get restive once again. It was about this time that the local newspapers began to take notice of the great Trade Union movement in England and the resulting strikes. In Guernsey a branch of the Stoneworkers Society of Great Britain-the Guernsey Stoneworkers Society came into being some time during the eighties and fought a not entirely unsuccessful strike over the employment of non- unionists in August, 1890.

That year, 1890, saw the publication of what is probably the most progressive newspaper Jersey has ever had. It was the Jersey Reformer. In its short life of about two years it engaged in a campaign against the local authorities for better living conditions and Constitutional reform. Its first editor, Reynolds, served a prison sentence in default of payment of damages granted to Stanley Malet, Chief Import Officer, in pursuance of a libel action.

In its first editorial it said: "We expect an uphill fight; progress in Jersey seems almost impossible; folk have been so long accustomed to bear their burdens that they scarcely seem to notice the weight of them now. We like folk to be dissatisfied and shall try to make them as dissatisfied as possible, and we hope thereby to be able to improve them a little," the Jersey Reformer summed-up the policy it carried out for its short but eventful life.

In February, 1897, the first attempt was made to set up a union branch in Jersey. This was a failure, for, the reason that stonemasons and .quarrymen who made the attempt found it impossible to pay their dues from their scanty pay of 3/- a day, and the movement fell to pieces.

It was not till September 18, 1909, that another attempt was made when the stoneworkers met at the Beresford Cafe under the chairmanship of W. Kessell to inaugurate a local branch of the Operative Masons Society of Great Britain and Ireland. It was then stated that 85 per cent of the stoneworkers of Jersey had shown their readiness to join. It was resolved that a request be made straightaway to the Society to send down an organiser.

The next four years were devoted to an attempt to obtain a wider franchise. Political activity rather than industrial seems to have been the order of the day. This was probably a reaction then. against the lack of interest taken in politics by the worker until then. It has always been difficult to get the Jerseyman to understand that the political and industrial struggles must go along hand in hand. He has tended first to concentrate on the one, then on the other, without correlating the two.

In 1910 the Jersey Working Man's League was formed. It held its first public meeting on December 12, 1910, at which was passed the Resolution: "That this meeting, recognising that taxation without representation is unjust, asks for the extension of the Franchise so as to embody the principle of Manhood Suffrage."

This League merged later with another organisation to form the Jersey Independent Labour Party and Labour League, which affiliated to the English I.L.P. The outstanding leader of the local I.L.P. was Peter Le Noir, a painter, who became secretary. Another name came to the fore-that of Mrs. Trachy - of whom more later.

At a meeting of the Jersey I.L.P., held on February 4, 1912, to discuss the position re the Franchise struggle, it was suggested that a demonstration of at least 5,000 workers in the Royal Square on the occasion of the States discussion of a Franchise Bill, would help things along.

This was commented upon and ridiculed by Ed. Le Quesne, Assistant Secretary of the Jersey Franchise and Workmen's Federation at its second annual general meeting held two days later. "We must just keep plodding along," said Mr. Le Quesne.

So they -just kept plodding-along, for the Jersey I.L.P. did not have mass support enough to go ahead on its own.

Peter Le Noir kept the ball rolling with controversial letters to the press re Socialism, in which letters, incidentally, he pointed out that he was a Fabian Socialist, and not one of those revolutionary British Social-Democratic Federation supporters. He believed in gradual evolution.

And so, to introduce the thin end of the wedge, Peter Le Noir stood as a Candidate for the Deputyship of St. Helier No. 2 district.

Unfortunately the worker still did not have the vote, so that Mr. Le Nair, the workers' candidate, polled 32 votes out of a total poll of 797. Such is the inevitability of gradualness!

During these last two years another of the many comet-like Jersey newspapers, which periodically flash across the sky and sink into oblivion, had come into existence. The Jerseyman gives us a hint of what some, at least, of the islanders thought of their States Assembly in an " Open Letter to the States," from which I take the following extracts:

".Pray don't think that you will always be able to sit down contentedly drawing in your dividends and pocketing your rents, while white-faced women and starving children die like flies in the dirty, filthy slums..And then, eliminate Seigneural rights. But there again, how many of you are Seigneurs? Ah, there's the rub! ...What are you going to do for our overworked and underpaid apprentices, girls and labourers; some men earning the princely salary of fifteen shillings per week, with a wife and six children to keep.

Yes, at this time fifteen shillings was the labourer's wage. How did he live? Well, here is a typical budget:-

Rent	3/6
Meat (3 lb.)	1/6
Bread (16 lb.)	2/8
Potatoes (20 lb.)	1/0
Vegetables	1/6
Dripping	6d
Tea, , Sugar, Salt, etc.	10d
Cigarettes (50) and Beer (2 pints)	1/0
Fuel and Gas	1/2
Clothing, Shoes and Repairs, etc.	1/4
Total:	15/0

It must be borne in mind that this 15/- was no minimum wage. The unskilled worker often drew less than that and even the skilled drew very little more. The carpenter's wage, 3/- a day in 1880, had risen to 3/6 a day by 1909; while the stone-masons complained that though a good master was known to give 4/- for a 13 or 14-hour day, the more usual rate of pay was 3/- for a day of twelve hours. Thus the skilled worker would receive anything from 18/- to £1 4s 4s. for his week's work.

That is so, if he were lucky! For he lost all "wet time" and was only paid for the actual hours he put in. And, although there was some talk of accident benefits in the States during those years, it was not until 1935 that any compensation was actually paid.

The Jerseyman points out that it was quite possible for the working-class family to manage on that 15/- per week. If they use "a little care, a firm hand on the milk jug, a measuring of half-spoonfuls of sugar, a spreading of the butter as if it were gold leaf, a man, wife and three children can pay rent, (sic!) keep a small fire, and avoid hunger on 15/- per week. They may even run to a shilling or eighteen pence for meat ('cuttings') on Sunday, and make a currant pudding during the week. But what are they to do for clothing? They 'manage' as we say in Jersey. They either sink their pride and apply to the parish for clothing, or else emulate the idyllic attire of our first parents."

These were the conditions of life that made the Ronez Quarrymen decide to form a local branch of the Amalgamated Union of Quarrymen on February 3, 1914. A Guernsey branch had been running for over two years and quarrymen coming from Guernsey had brought the idea with them. A meeting was arranged by the Guernsey President and Secretary, and 54 men were signed up on the spot. J. H. Pinel was elected local President.

The Stonemasons' Union had remained quiet all-this time, and seems to have been very inactive. Whether this A.U.Q. branch would have woken things up more remains a ground for speculation, for the First World War intervened and put a brake on the developing Union movement in the island for the next four years. With the outbreak of war the Operative Mason's Union, the Union of Quarrymen and the local I.L.P. branch collapsed, leaving Jersey without any labour organisation until 1918, when the Jersey worker at last found his voice once more.