Thursday, 2 February 2017

P.133/2016 What Happened?






Today saw the debate of P.133/2017 and a number of amendments debated in the Island's Parliament and despite trying to listen to the debate(s) I am still not altogether clear as to what actually happened? What have we ended up with? Will it be in place for the next election?

This discussion was being held in the comments section of our PREVIOUS POSTING so though it better to start a new Blog Posting on it so hear it is.

Can readers explain exactly what went on today and is our Electoral System any less confusing than what it was?

A very short post purely to find out exactly what is, or going to be, going on?

110 comments:

  1. Simple, the confidence trickster Lewis dragged Reform Jersey into the worst reform possible and he is on the news all smiley saying he is pleased with today's result even though it did not follow his proposal.
    What does that tell you?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I heard Adrian Lee on the radio this morning saying he was surprised that Reform Jersey united with this. I didn't get to hear the debate. I understand it's possible to see the televised sitting on the internet. Hopefully there is someone out there who can relay the information in a straight forward way to save us all watching it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well I am over the moon with the outcome I get to not vote for Suzie Pinel.
    The other positive is that ,unless things get even worse, this should destroy the elected unopposed brigade.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "this should destroy the elected unopposed brigade" .....What? do you mean the Constables who are still there and now have bragging rights to be the only "parish based" representative.

      This is bad, bad, bad.

      Constables for the next couple of decades

      still 3 types of representative to concentrate the dominant vote and disenfranchise the significant minority

      Less opposition with the reduction in members.

      More funds rewired to run a successful Deputy campaign

      The gerrymandering establishment consolidates it's power

      Delete
    2. Generally it's the constables who get elected unopposed. In 2014, 11 out of 12 constables were elected unopposed. A smaller proportion of deputy seats were uncontested. (2014 = 6 / 29).
      Option B+ (without amendments) it is not real reform but an endorsement to entrench the constables when the reality is that they’re on dodgy ground.
      The constables’ automatic seat as a States Member dwindles with each decade. At some point soon (if we haven’t already passed it) more than 50% (of the population via survey or referendum) would say ‘No more constables in the States.’ The authors of Option B and B+ know this. But they won’t say it.
      Option B +/- is a disaster. Option A was the best and Option C second best. Even the States realised this when they chose to reject Option B after the referendum.

      Delete
  4. Which is it now? 44 or 48 members?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I could be wrong but as far as I understand it there will be 48 members. One less than we have now.

      Delete
    2. Yes it is 48. Only problem is at least 44 will be muppets.

      Delete
  5. Real reform CONSTABLES OUT then we are talking progress, part 2 Bailffs job

    ReplyDelete
  6. What a day, and after 2 months worth of giving Sam Mezec multiple warnings about not trusting Deputy Andrew Lewis when he finally gets to present P133 he wants to pull it.
    This is without doubt a disaster for progressives and had they listened to opinions on this blog alone it could have been avoided.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Having missed the end of the debate, I was stunned to get home and learn from the BBC TV News at 6.30pm that the States had actually adopted P.133 as amended by Farnham, because it seemed that they were going to defer the whole thing until the next States sitting when I switched off after 4pm.

    My own understanding is that P.133 became law only because Lewis, having initially declared that he was withdrawing his proposition, then sensationally changed his mind after several of the most senior Ministers got up and made speeches urging him not to withdraw. Farnham, seeing his one great chance to take all the credit about to slip away, also ripped into Lewis.

    Lewis then flip-flopped and changed his mind. This then led to a legal conundrum because Farnham had also proposed (stupidly) holding a referendum on his own changes before next year's election. The twit hadn't taken into account how long this process would take and it became apparent that the referendum would have to be done and dusted within the next 3 months otherwise it would be too late to enact the legislation for the 2018 elections. Yet when I heard Farnham being interviewed on the 10.30pm edition of ITV News, he said that he hopes his plans will be put to a referendum in the "third or fourth quarter" of this year and if approved, be introduced in time for next year's elections! So it would appear that the States are going to rush this through in record time!

    It's all a terrible mess which only got adopted because enough States Members convinced themselves that they had to agree to some type of reform today come what may. Better bad reform than no reform was their motto. As a result, more than a century and a half of Deputies representing their parishes is going to be destroyed. Instead, Deputies will represent their own parish and some neighbouring parishes too, while the Constables continue to get elected unopposed as they always have and the wealthiest Ministers who can afford to spend £9k on their election campaigns continue to get back in as Senators... >:(

    Worst of all was watching the despicable Mr Lewis being interviewed on BBC TV at 6.30pm and claiming that he was "pleased" with the result, when we all know that little more than 3 hours earlier he had stated the exact opposite to the House. Well that's yet another lie to add to the others he's already got away with this week!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Having listened to some of the talkfest dross of the past few days I have come up with a way of States to save at least 15% of their talk time . This new process is simply to utilize my new innovative product that failed to get JIF money , but I am not really bitter.
    My product is called MetaCliche .This truly innovative product lumps together all the commonly overused cliches and aphorisms by Jersey politicians into one easy to use phrase. This saves time and attention span and can even be reduced to a simple shorthand form. Senator Sir Philip Baihache was first to use the URGH after each sentence.
    So what does URGH mean ?

    " A day for throwing the baby Ground turkeys out of the blue Sky box"

    I am looking to import numerous highly paid compilers into the Island to develop this product but might consider any local who could produce one.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Some years back I am sure I read on Trevor Pitman's political blog that Mussoline, the late Italien dictator, had stated that the real name for fascism should have been Corporatism because that is really what a fascist state was about. I hadn't thought about this in ages until I sat down to go through what happened yesterday.

    This is surely what we here in Jersey now have with so many in politics always out to appease the financiers who have captured our island. We are a legalised fascist 'Corporate' state. Any chance of genuine reform I strongly now believe is all but impossible. If only Reform Jersey had not played in to Lewis's hands. Has anyone from the party actually attacked Lewis for his shameful U-turn in telling members to vote for the mess? No, or if they have I have not heard it reported.

    Maybe some other eader can enlighten me if I am wrong?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reform Jersey seem pretty quiet on all of this. Nothing on Dep Mezec's blog. Don't think Tadier and Southern are allowed to express views of their own any more?

      Delete
  10. Just when you think the lunatics who have taken over the ayslum can't make it any worse - they do!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Now we will have 48 members in the States how does this equate, Venice convention-wise, with St Helier's position having roughly a third of the population and still just 13 seats?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of the 48 members 8 are exactly proportional as they have an island-wide mandate. Take them out of the 48 and you are left with 40 seats for the Deputies and the Constables. St Helier now will have 13 seats out of 40. Roughly a third.

      Delete
  12. Nothing will change before 2018 so in my opinion whatever Progressives we have need to go all out to get increased numbers elected. Then we can try and overturn this joke. But where will the good candidates come from?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is my concern too. Not many coming forward. Fewer in numbers in the states than 3 elections ago.

      Delete
  13. Does anyone know who this geezer being charged under the anti-blogging/freedom of speech law is? And why wasn't he charged under the Hate Crime Law? Oh, yes, Jersey still doesn't have a Hate Crime law does it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bet it is one of the handful of haters on the fake discussion political forum. Won't name it. We all know the one.

      As to what happened yesterday I can't believe how people were convinced that they had to vote for some reform or they were letting the public down. They have let the public down by doing what they did.

      Delete
    2. I don't understand how Andrew Lewis summed up and told members that it was still reform which was a good thing given that he said the amendment had made his P133 unrecognisable and had wanted to pull it?

      Delete
  14. When exactly is the May 2018 election? Maybe a referendum is possible in the time if the date is late May? Or is it that our wonderful States have not even set the 2018 date yet?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Why is there no comment from Deputy Sam Mezec or anybody from Reform Jersey?
    Andrew Lewis and Lyndon Farnham hogging the news and saying democracy has won yet not a murmur from Reform Jersey who have had so much to say on this subject.
    Did the 28 States Members get it right and it is Reform Jersey who are out of touch????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't blame them for keeping stum - this proposition as passed was not just bollocks but double bollocks with brass knobs on.

      Delete
  16. Dep. Lewis voted against the final proposal yet is on the news all happy as Larry about Lyndon's amendment winning, saying its reform and democracy.
    It must have been the hidden agenda between Lewis and the Establishment, and Reform Jersey were suckered into the devious Lewis web of lies like a moth into the flame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure where you got it from that Lewis voted against his own proposition? I know that's what he said he was going to do during the debate but as far as I can work out he DID in fact vote for it.

      The votes are HERE and HERE.

      Delete
    2. Sam Mezec says Lewis voted against it. The last vote up on the States website seems to back him up. Who is mistaken here?

      Delete
    3. The last vote on the website is an amendment by Lyndon Farnham HERE.

      I believe my comment, and links, at 15:07 to be correct in that Lewis voted in favour of his proposition despite saying that he was going to vote against it.

      Delete
    4. On Deputy Mezec's blog in answer to a question from someone he says Lewis voted against it. Is the DEputy simply mistaking what happened? It was a rather confusing debate.

      Delete
    5. As I have said in the main posting: "I am still not altogether clear as to what actually happened?."

      Naturally I would bow to Sam's superior knowledge as he was in the States and part of the debate. I did not hear the whole debate. With that said; it (the votes) looks to me that I have it correct and that Sam could have made a mistake.

      Delete
    6. Bet he isn't half as confused as most of the public seem to be. Everyone I have spoken to says this latest move makes even more convoluted. It certainly doesn't help, although I guess Reform can say that St. Helier will be slightly bettere represented in terms of fairer numbers?

      Delete
    7. Deputy Mezec has been featured on this blog many times with you interviewing him. Hopefully he will come on and clarify this very confusing situation. Maybe Deputy Lewis will?

      I think that you have it right by the way. But I wouldn't put my house on it!

      Delete
    8. Whether Lewis voted for or not it makes no difference because he is happy with it.
      This is what is strange about Lewis's reaction, why isn't he trashing Farnham's proposal, crying foul or saying his P133 was hijacked and wrecked like others?
      The mysterious devious Lewis strikes again.

      Delete
    9. Quite, the way this has been portrayed in the media and the way Andrew Lewis looks to be spinning it in the media is NOT a true reflection of what has occurred. Rico will be publishing a Blog about this over the weekend.

      Delete
    10. Funny, I have just tried to access the States of Jersey website to look at Hansard and the Minutes of the States and clarify the votes for posters here.

      And all I get is that I cannot access the site.

      Delete
  17. If only Reform Jersey had taken in our warnings.

    ReplyDelete
  18. So this latest move to keep 8 Senators and to keep the 12 Constables are a safe vote for the future establishment....
    Lets hope we get 28 new breed Deputies from these new 6 constituencies!?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Apart from Deputy Higgins I dispair of this States. I have read all of the quality blogs for what must be five or six years now and I have to echo what so many others have said before. There is such a shortage of honest, capable people who would represent we ordinary folk. So many of the good 'uns have gone. I would just love to have daniel Wimberley and Shona and Trevor Pitman back.

    The speeches in the Lewis debate were generally dire and the views really all about keeping things the same with the wealthy's representatives at the top. Yet I actually heard Farnham trying to claim their had been loads of great speeches. Watch for yourself if you are an insomniac. Shocking stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I fell into despair when a poster on here claimed that Sam Mezec and Andrew Lewis were working together, then it took weeks for Sam to confirm it was true, whilst Monty and Geoff stayed clammed up.
    It is the most reckless move by Reform Jersey since inception.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Andrew Lewis works in PR. He bends the truth for a living.

      Delete
  21. Do not confuse Deputy Andrew Lewis St Helier with Deputy Kevin Lewis St Saviour (no relation) former TTS Minister (got rid of by Gorst)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Multi member constituencies tends to mean a greater chance for minorities, women etc. so that's a good thing.
    On the other hand, the reduced number of seats to 48 puts a greater proportion of power with the constables.
    Result= very little change.
    This is no real reform. It is a tiny token reform to avoid bringing Jersey up to date and maintains power in a patriarchal, classic Western political structure of the 18th Century.

    ReplyDelete
  23. People person at 9.15, yes I well remember this sitting when Gorst described Deputy Kevin Lewis as a peoples man always hands on working on occasions with his workers in all weathers, saying that he always felt safe in his bed during storms , in the knowledge that matters were in the very capable hands of Deputy Kevin Lewis, then he gets rid of him what a turn coat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the separation of powers debate Kevin Lewis sucked up to William Bailhache describing as a true professional. Although to be fair he didn't say a true professional what still sums up what a useless, deferential poodle the man is.

      Delete
  24. Another sick pervert uncovered in the Education system.

    http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2017/02/04/teacher-was-predatory-paedophile/

    A FORMER music teacher has been convicted of a series of sexual crimes against boys at a Jersey secondary school more than 35 years ago, the JEP can reveal.

    Christopher Roy Bacon was described as an arrogant ‘predatory paedophile’ who used his position to ‘prey on vulnerable pupils’.

    The 74-year-old was found guilty following an Assize jury trial involving seven charges of indecent assault and one count of procuring an act of gross indecency in the late 70s and early 80s at d’Hautrée School. The offences were committed against six boys.

    Reporting restrictions on the case, which was heard in the Royal Court in November, were only lifted yesterday at the end of a second trial Bacon faced this week, in which he was acquitted of a separate charge of indecent assault against a young teenage girl not connected to the school.

    Bacon, who has been remanded in custody, is due to be sentenced by the Superior Number of the Royal Court on 15 March.

    ReplyDelete
  25. have you offered Deputy Mezec the opportunity of explaining his stance on P133 and why he felt the positive steps on fairer representation he saw merited supporting it, over the unfortunate identity of its proposer? Similarly, to hear his views on whether he thinks the amended result can be a positive step forward even now?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Did anyone notice that the former hotel, now a pub, in which Deputy Citizen Mezec held his Guernsey meeting was called The Wicked Wolf? Obviously Wolfie Mezec is held in high regard over there. And why not. P133 may have been a huge mistake but the boy is okay. At least he is fighting for ordinary people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many States Members say they fight for ordinary people, especially the Deputy door knockers in St Helier 1 & 2......

      But the nightmare reform of the States has been agreed this week and to quote Frank Walker - 'we are where we are' and nobody can argue that it sucks.

      Delete
    2. Well, to be fair living in St Helier 2 and 1 before that the likes of the Pitmans, and Southern as well to be fair, really did work for those who voted for them and others besides. Shona Pitman I would even go as far to say was the best politician for taking up peoples cases and getting results I have ever met. A lovely person too.

      Delete
    3. Yes a very genuine, hardworking Deputy.

      Delete
    4. Better than 99% of the present bunch that's for sure. Like to see Shona Pitman back in politics and her husband too.

      Delete
  27. Replies
    1. He's a disgrace and to think that Sam and Reform was warned about trusting this man, but they chose to ignore us.

      Delete
    2. When can we expect the post?

      Delete
    3. Just been on Rico's blog. Its a good post too. But I am still confused. Did Lewis vote for Farnham's amended version of his P133 or did he vote against it? Deputy Mezec says Lewis voted against it.

      Delete
    4. As I mentioned HERE. Andrew Powergate Lewis voted for his own proposition (with the Farnham amendment) Although he told the States, and public, he would be voting against it because it didn't resemble what the people wanted.

      Delete
    5. So even Sam Mezec is confused?

      Delete
    6. Unless Andrew POWERGATE Lewis told him that he did vote against it and Sam hadn't had the chance to check the votes himself? If that was the case then I would say Sam was "duped" rather than "confused."

      Delete
    7. Think Sam should say something. If only 'Look, in our view as a party P133 offered small but still significant improvement in regard to both St. Helier and getting the States down to just two types of States Members. What we have ended up with has left a slight improvement in St. Helier's position as the only positive. We are really disappointed in Deputy Lewis' about turn in claiming that the result was a good step forward generally to improving the system" Many of us could accept that I think. The silence reflects badly.

      Delete
    8. Tried asking Sam a handful of questions on this issue since Thursday and he won't even publish them.
      I was wondering whether we've all been too hard on him but he is a Deputy and should be able to have an answer for everything. Reckon we need some new people standing in 2018 though and perhaps less left. The world is going through changes and we have out own immigration problems that require a more middle to right approach.

      Delete
    9. Can't agrre with that. The political right has screwed up the world all over. Mezec's politics are spot on. Its his approach he needs to work on.

      Delete
    10. If you look at Europe, UK, USA, its the Left that have done the most damage and this is why they are all swinging to the Right.

      Delete
    11. Have you been living in a cave? The right destroyed social cohesion and a whole generation in Britain, In the USA there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats - aside from the huge growth of Bernie Sanders movement. That is the future. Ne0-liberalism only causes a more and more unequal society globally. In Latin America the 'far left' began to give ordinary people hope. That is why the USA have worked overtime to do what it has always done - seek to undermine, overthrow and even destroy. The list since the Second World War of toppling democracies who won't bow to the Washington Consensus is endless. In Europe at leas most countries swing between left and right - the sign of a healthy democracy where if you don't deliver you can be turfed out. Then we have Jersey. Stuck in a Thatcherite/neo-feudal timewarp. Wake up and smell the coffee: given enough time the right will destroy the world. They are even too stupid in their greed to understand even they will still have to live in it behind their razorwire, gates and high walls.

      Delete
    12. Sounds like 18.31 is hankering after the good old days in Jersey of 1940 - 45? The right have never really left since then have they? At least the Nazi's gave us our precious 20% tax rate I suppose.

      Delete
    13. It is the low standard of the Conservatives here in Jersey that is the real problem. None of our ministers could run a successful business from scratch if daddy or mummy hadn't boiught them one while giving them a packet. Wouldn't even be so bad if any of them even understood that a successful government can't be run on a strict business model so there is no real point trying. I am both looking forward to 2018 and dreading it. Need change but where will a sufficient number of capable and honest candidates come from?

      Delete
    14. Where will a sufficient number of capable and honest candidates come from? (anon @ 10.12) Well said. My observation is that post Syvret, Bob Hill and the Pitman era there appears to be a steady decline in the number of strong, honest and progressive politicians. I know of a few good and capable people who have or would stand for election but learning just how toxic it is,they've decided firmly against the idea now. Jersey really does need reform. It's a total mess from the top down.

      Delete
  28. The end result of P133 is everything Reform Jersey never wanted and that is why they have nothing to say.
    Sam Mezec reminds me a bit of Stuart Syvret, Ben Shenton, Alan Breckon and even Ted Vibert. A one man band who will never succeed in the States due to an inability to build trust and get on with others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not a fair comment on Breckon or even Vibert. The latter drew all manner of people to him initially. Some who he probably shouldn't have touched with a barge pole. Shenton was held in contempt by right and left because he was such a shallow populist. Syvret never seemed to want to risk anyone else stealing his thunder. Certainly those who would take us on a differnt path need to be more tolerant of their individual differences.

      Delete
    2. Ted Vibert was unable to hold the JDA together due to what he described as it's far left stance.
      Then again Ted wasn't that easy to work with as he had some issues.
      Breckon was always a loner.
      Sam is going the same way I'm afraid.
      To get power the States you need to build bridges and get the trust of counterparts, even if you cannot agree on everything and its a long process.

      Delete
    3. You over look one cruial aspect. Because for most in the States being there has little to do with any political philosophy or principles they are not interested in 'building bridges' with people who do have these and want a fairer, more democratic government and island. All they want is for things to stay the same. P133 showed this to a T. The people mentioned, apart from Shenton who was of the same 'keept it in the hands of the rich' ilk, whatever their individual failings at least cared about Jersey being run for the majority. Mezec falls into this category too. Just wish he would drop the anger. The last thing we need is more right leaning loons like those who gave us the Innovation Fund fiasco.

      Delete
  29. Its been a shocking and embarrassing last few weeks in The States. VFC, don't know about "What happened". More like what happens next. Who could predict?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A commenter on Rico's Blog has pretty much explained what happened with regards to P.133/2016:

      "I'll try explaining Lewis's proposition in layman terms for those who are not as politically educated as others.

      Basically Andrew Lewis brought a proposition telling the states that the electorate had asked for a bran new shiny red Ferrari and he asked the states to agree they could have it. Lyndon Farnham said don't give them a Ferrari, let them have something brand new red and shiny but let it be a bicycle with the front wheel missing - the seat taken off - and a flat back tyre. Andrew Lewis then said yeah f*ck it that'll do at least it is shiny and red the electorate will never know the difference.

      Is that a fair description would you say Rico?"

      From HERE.

      Delete
  30. Depending on the findings within the COI report I truly hope a States Member will bring a proposal that Deputy Andrew Lewis be banned from standing/sitting in the States?

    The same should apply when we have the findings regarding the investigation in to the Innovation Fund disgrace. But who is brave enough? Come on Deputy Mezec. Or will it be left to Higgins as usual?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Talking of the COI report you surely would have thought they might have given us some indication of a likely publication date by now? With the silence you have to worry the States' lawyers are being allowed to go through it and demand it be toned down.

      Delete
    2. Mike Higgins is the only politician worthy of a vote and certainly the only one with the backbone to carry out a very good suggestion as put forward at 18.36.

      Delete
    3. How can they ban Deputy Andrew Lewis for the Graham Power suspension when events show that Senator Ian Le Marquand rubber stamped it as Home Affairs Minister soon afterwards?

      Delete
    4. That is incorrect. Ian Le Marquand, along with Napier and the Royal Court criticised the (possibly illegal) suspension by Andrew Lewis. At a Suspension Review Hearing Ian Le Marquand REFUSED to discuss the original suspension. He knew it wouldn’t stack up. Ian Le Marquand found another excuse to suspend Mr. Power knowing how toxic the original suspension was. Far from “rubber stamp” it he completely disowned it.

      Delete
    5. Admittedly there is a lot on this from the time in Hansard but plenty to show Ian Le Marquand agreed with the original suspension which will always assist Andrew Lewis in the face of your criticism of him.

      " “In terms of illegality [that is one of the factors that have to be considered] Mr. Power did not assert that the Minister did not understand the code and the law that regulated his decision making. He accepted that the Minister had the power to suspend a Chief Officer at the outset of any disciplinary procedure and before any preliminary or other investigation.” That is the first point of difficulty with the Napier Report. Mr. Napier has come to a construction of the meaning of the disciplinary code which is completely different to that come to by the Attorney General, completely different to that come to by myself and, indeed, which was not challenged by Mr. Power before the Royal Court. I can understand that Mr. Napier might come to a different interpretation of the meaning of the code because, frankly, the code is so ambiguous that it is capable of very many different interpretations. But the fact remains that Mr. Power did not challenge my interpretation of the code before the Royal Court, notwithstanding that it was different to that which now Mr. Napier comes up with. So all these arguments saying: “The original suspension did not follow the code in terms of interpreting it in a way that Mr. Napier interpreted it” frankly I am not worried because what is the correct interpretation of the code is totally up in the air. I move on. “As to irrationality [that is the second ground for striking down the decision which I made] the Minister was conducting a review of the decision taken by his predecessor in November but in essence 2 questions arose, both of which the Minister answered in the affirmative; (1) was there sufficient material to justify a disciplinary investigation; (2) if so, could Mr. Power remain in post while that investigation took place? Those questions have to be addressed in context which we would summarise as follows. Mr. Power was the Chief of Police and Mr. Harper the Deputy Chief and Senior Investigating Officer in respect of Operation Rectangle. Mr. Harper retired from the force in July 2008 and was replaced as Deputy Chief Officer and Senior Investigating Officer in respect of Operation Rectangle by Mr. Warcup. Mr. Warcup conducted a review of Operation Rectangle and reached conclusions which were presented to the Ministers and to the media that were revelatory and which brought into serious question the management of Operation Rectangle."

      Goes on and on and on.

      Delete
    6. Yes. ILM did a new suspension himself which made the old one moot and stopped Power's challenge of that one in its tracks. As Voice says, he did that because he knew well the original was unsafe. Then he relied on the ridiculous excuse of "Corporation Sole" to avoid reviewing the original himself.

      Link

      What a shower.

      Delete
    7. "The police chief was sacked for (i) refusing to collaborate in the sacking of the then Health Minister, Stuart Syvret, who had begun poking around in the entrails of the abuse, (ii) not reining in the Deputy Police Chief who was fearlessly investigating past abuses, including those at Haut de la Garenne, and (iii) being too close to bringing charges which would have enormously embarrassed the oligarchy."

      Delete
    8. It is a sick place where the political and legal system works so hard to protect child abusers and will not lift a finger to protect the abused.

      Delete
  31. The Inquiry has seldom communicated with the public on anything to do with its own behaviour eg site outages. Don't hold your breath.

    ReplyDelete
  32. There is a "lets just get on with it" mentality in the States. The New Hospital and Finance Centre schemes demonstrate this. The Waterfront Master Plan is now to be re-drawn but we all know that the road will not be sunk and the car parking and St Helier Regeneration fund are likely to go down the same immense plug-hole as the Innovation Fund. Its all becoming too complicated. The elected members are overwhelmed by their task and the public are just simply drowning in a sea of complexity and misinformation on a world wide scale.
    All our brains are turning to political sea-lettuce.
    It is wholly unrealistic to expect to find 50 or so people who can be our competent representatives every 4 years. We are unable to make the informed decisions to choose them and they are just simply not capable of doing whatever it is we expect of them. There might be 6 competent people out of the 50 who please you or I - but the objective of finding 26 ( a majority) who will make consistent and reasoned decisions on a regular basis is just simply unrealistic UNLESS you simply want the status quo retained and the prime policy is the pursuit of profit or surplus - in other words if you want a business not a fully rounded government at all.

    I am not at all surprised to read time and time again that Deputy A or B is the ONLY competent member of the States. If such a conclusion is genuinely founded on facts then there is no hope. The system is beyond repair. There is no point in voting for anybody. There is no purpose either in being a member of such an organisation as the States.

    The simple fact is that every 4 years or so about 50 people will be chosen by some means or other to form a States Assembly - our government by any other name. For the most part they are not "political" people at all and if there are common threads these are usually about things that they do not propose to change. For the most part they are supporters of the "status quo" and for the most part - those who vote - share that vague objective.

    Dissent is not well received either in or out of the States. Politics and political discussion is still not something to be encouraged and when we hear that there was a "good debate" in the States it usually means that it was lengthy - but devoid of any political analysis based upon political beliefs.
    As I know, the absence of political parties lies at the root of the problem - but I am a political person. Most people in Jersey are not. So they will tend to elect the grey candidates if faced with a choice.
    "Lets just get on with it" expresses the frustration and incompetence of the Assembly and to a large extent the view of the public. We who scribble here and campaign for change will not be assisted by the reformed electoral system so far as I can predict. But we clearly do not know and have not learned how to help ourselves. The 300,000 protestors on the streets of Bucharest share our frustration as do many millions around the world but we all are seeking the same magic political dust.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with this analysis. Beautifully written description of something so dire. Thanks Tom

      Delete
  33. Hello team Voice. Any chance of an interview with the excellent deputy Mike Higgins regarding the shameful SEB no confidence proposition vote? This utter disgrace and cowardly behaviour from most States members seems to have slipped under the radar due to P133. Thanks and keep up the excellent reporting.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anyone else notice the Establishment appointing Christian May to a hugely paid PR role regarding Brexit as a part of External Relations Dep. Helping their boy get elected in 2018. They just have no shame at all do they.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Couldn't make it up could you. Jobs for the boys, Disgusting.

      Delete
    2. Excellent point. I could do with a well paid and cushy job. Even one basically doing one that we pay the clown Philip Bailhache to do would have been quite acceptable. But maybe I wasn't qualified? Could someone point me to where Mr May's new post was widely advertised? Thanks.

      Delete
    3. I thought civil servants weren't allowed to stand in elections?

      Delete
  35. Good that this blog publishes highly diverse view and comments. Not like Rico Sorda, Mezec and Syvret. I found May quite likeable but I doubt he has any relevant experience for a job that will pay more than the minister he reports to.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Good to see Deputy Higgins is asking a question about this dubious appointment next week. Looks certain that proper procedure was not adhered to. If this should prove the case I trust someone will lodge a vote of no confidence in the clown Bailhache?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gotta agree with Kaz. We need answers on this highly suspicious and clearly unnecessary appointment. I never saw the job advertised. Don't we have fair play laws in Jersey or can the great and the powerful just do what they like?

      Delete
  37. Expect the next States sitting will be the usual non-event? Token opposition from Reform Jersey. Non-appearances from the likes of Kristina Moore and Murray Norton? Present in name only the likes of Scott Invisibel Wickenden, Russel London Labey, and the standard jabbering lunacy every now and again from Peter Mad McLinton, John Popmpous Waffle Rafault and the most right-wing Constable of all time Le Trocquier or whatever his name is? can't wait for the election. This States is dire. Higgins must feel like he is stuck in some horrible nightmare surrounded by escapees from the village of the damned?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought that the village of Jersey only required one idiot -but it seems in some places they sre stacked three deep.

      Le Trocquier (unelected) is priceless. In one of the debates where he argued against the CoI he announced that he did not 'believe himself conflicted'

      Delete
    2. I would suggest that this Constable's regular utterances might suggest he still hankers for the days of shiney Jackboots. I would suggest it, but then I don't want to be fined £1000 for expressing an opinion. An opinion that would still really just be political observation and nothing like the blatant lies and personal abuse that readers often rightly refer to as offensive bile spouted by the troll clan. Where will it end I wonder?

      Delete
  38. Jesus a £1,000 fine for this.
    http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2017/02/10/man-fined-1000-for-grossly-offensive-facebook-comments/
    Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I deplore what he wrote but defend his right to write it. VFC warned readers of dodgy legislation that will close down free speech HERE. From the link you provided to the JEP article it looks like his comments were aimed at refugees as a whole, and not the three individuals visiting the island. He should have a right to his views and a right to share them without fear. I don't agree with his views but he has a human right to offend........Which he did.

      Delete
  39. Usual "censorship" rag online re facebook story, no comments allowed!!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Lucky the legendary Norman Le Brocq, Jersey's finest ever politician, wasn't reaching the conclusion that the only thing left to do about a Nazi lickspittal Bailiff in the interest of bringing about democracy circa 1945 was shoot him in the world of today.

    Personally I find the lies, lies and damned lies spouted by ministers far more offensive than what this idiot said on Facebook. When can we expect to see a few of them fined?

    ReplyDelete
  41. VFC, slightly off topic, but a relevant political comment nonetheless (on this, the best of Jersey's political blogs...)

    For the past 2 days in the JEP, the States Greffe has been paying for an ad in the JEP, inviting islanders to apply to join the States of Jersey Complaints Panel.

    One can only assume that the whole panel has resigned in the light of the States' refusal to censure the SEB in the Alwitry employment contract scandal. A tenner says I'm right.

    Where is the mainstream media reporting on this? Do the journalists not see the ad in the paper and join up the dots? As far as I can see, this would be the story:

    - States Complaints Panel releases highly critical report of SEB
    - SEB immediately rubbishes the report
    - States Complaints Panel take highly unusual step of responding to SEB criticism of the panel
    - SEB continues to rubbish report
    - Deputy Mike Higgins brings vote of no confidence in SEB
    - SEB continue to rubbish the report during debate and survive, with a disgusting majority of States Members backing SEB
    - States Complaints Panel members all quietly resign. No announcement in media. Carpet, carpet, brush, brush. (OK this last bullet point is assumption but I bet I'm right)

    The States Greffe then invites a new bunch of highly qualified and experienced islanders to give their own time for nothing, only for their future reports to almost certainly be ignored.

    Am I missing anything?

    I can't find a link to the advert online, by the way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fascinating.

      And not forgetting that it was the States Complaints Board that ordered the administration to give Graham Power the crucial meta data they were attempting to deny him.

      Are they now to be added to the other victims who stood up to this blatantly corrupt régime?

      Delete
    2. Hi Polo,

      I think the members of the complaints panel who ruled in favour of Graham Power were serving an earlier term than the members who produced the Alwitry report. I think they serve a five year term.

      The common thread is that the States of Jersey appoints these people then just ignores them when they produce a report that goes against the regime. Who would want to serve on a panel like that?

      Delete
  42. I take the point. But it is interesting nevertheless that, from an institutional point of view, the Board seemed to be doing its job in both cases (Power & SEB). One of the very few properly functioning state institution on the island (along with C&AG).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree. The Complaints Panel and the C&AG do a fantastic job. It's hard for the CoM to ignore the C&AG but they seem to routinely ignore the work of the Complaints Panel. Who'd want to work on that panel? My guess is the new applicants will be establishment lackeys.

      Delete
  43. On a different story but still with Senator Philip Ozouf deeply involved he did leak the story.

    It just popped up and is full of surprises as long as you dig and read and make sense of the redaction and out of sync timing, The private emails regarding the waste of the tax pound on King and Gallichan golfing jolly. What you can read

    Philip Ozouf leaked the story to the media, Lyndham Farnham was going to address the COM with this information.

    Murray Norton, suprisingly given his lazy reputation comes out with a blindingly good email against the spending of King and Galichan.

    The JEP were actually quite aggressive in chasing down details. They also asked if Ozouf's cost were to be examined but no reply or it was redacted ?

    The Chief Officer Jon Richardson ( according to Senator Philip Ozouf ) has to sign off all international travel. Then the Chief Executive had to carry out an enquiry said CM Gorst, obviously into himself which was kept quiet ?

    Much of the Jollies are completely unnecessary. Telling African dignitaries how Jersey's assembly and tax laws work is all available on line plus there were privately funded Jersey's law firms in attendance at the mining conference. Therefore why was the public sector involved ?

    Senator Lyndham Farnham responses to the JEP questions were written for him, obviously he is unable to speak for himself.

    Digital Jersey and the politicians could save millions ( if as Sam Mezec pointed out, civil servants fly all around the world ) but instead were forced to use conference skype and other modern day digital and internet communications.

    https://www.gov.je/Freedom%20of%20Information%20library/ID%20FOI%20Redacted%20emails%2020160726.pdf

    If this does not work

    Thank you for your time this morning

    26 July 2016.

    https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=thisisjersey:+civil+service+flights+4+years

    ReplyDelete
  44. And Eddie gnome wants to take £15 quid of a disabled person to get a bus pass while this lot travel on aeroplanes at our expense all over the world. 32,800 trips in just four years costing over 5 million, which does not include accommodation etc. Talk about taking the p***

    http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2016/04/16/states-have-spent-5-million-on-flights-since-2012-reveals-watchdog/

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.