Note the voting patterns. Out of 12 Senators, 10 voted to increase GST at the earliest possible opportunity; 9 of 12 Constables, but only 10 of 29 Deputies.
Senator Terry Le Sueur
Senator Philip Ozouf
Senator Paul Routier
Senator Jimmy Perchard
Senator Freddie Cohen
Senator Alan Maclean
Senator Ben Shenton
Senator Ian Le Marquand
Senator Terry Le Main
Senator Sarah Ferguson
Constable Ken Vibert
Constable John Gallichan
Constable Dan Murphy
Constable Peter Hanning
Constable Len Norman
Constable John Refault
Constable Juliette Gallichan
Constable Mike Jackson
Constable Silva Yates
Deputy Ben Fox
Deputy James Reed
Deputy Jackie Hilton
Deputy Anne Pryke
Deputy Ian Gorst
Deputy Phil Rondel
Deputy Anne Dupre
Deputy Eddie Noel
Deputy Andrew Green
Deputy Angela Jeune Also, please take a look at the videos that have kindly been uploaded of the GST demonstration in the Royal Square, on Saturday, by our very own cameraman from Time4Change TV. These can be viewed at isthisjersey.com.
This is my establishment party list. Its the one I use on my Blog and these are the ones voting us down the river. Check them off against the list above.
ReplyDeleteSenator Perchard
Senator Terry Le Sueur
Senator Paul Routier
Senator Philip Ozouf
Senator Terry Le Main
Senator Ben Shenton
Senator Freddie Cohen
Senator Sarah Ferguson
Senator Alan Maclean
Senator Ian Le Marquand
Connetable Len Norman
Connetable Silvanus Yates
Connetable Daniel Murpthy
Connétable Ken Vibert
Connétable John Gallichan
Connétable Mike Jackson
Connétable Graham Butcher
Connétable Peter Hanning
Connétable John Refault
Connétable Juliette Gallichan
Deputy Ben Fox
Deputy James Reed
Deputy Jackie Hilton
Deputy Ian Gorst
Deputy Phil Rondel
Deputy Angela Jeune
Deputy Ann Dupré
Deputy Eddie Noel
Deputy Andrew Green M.B.E.
This is the 99% of the time bloc vote
rs
Interesting that ALL St saviour deputies voted against this yet the constable voted FOR it so much for joined up Parish politics,think that a challenge to this constable should be instigated at next election!!
ReplyDeleteIn fairness, Monty, Ian Le Marquand and Andrew Green have both signed up to the exemptions on GST. I'm not sure you can say that makes them part of the GST party!
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure either. What I do know is that they voted to increase GST and they did that knowing full well there was no assurance that exemptions would get passed. So effectively they have voted to increase tax on food and domestic energy by a further 2%.
ReplyDeleteI wonder had the votes taken place the other way round whether there would have been a different outcome
whoppe gst gose up the lest well off suffer more the rich stay happy states members get £800 only in jersey well i hope they all choke on there most probably free lunch along with there free drinks bring on next years election,s
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting point - who decided the order of the votes? Because that was obviously very significant in how people voted. If you thought exemptions were going to get through, you might not be too bothered over giving way over a freeze.
ReplyDeleteIt is, in practice, done by the States Greffe, but there is a certain protocol about how the amendments are prioritised. I will make an inqury now for you to the Greffier and revert.
ReplyDeleteHere is the response from the Greffier:
ReplyDelete'The order in which amendments are taken is determined largely by the provisions of Standing Order 70(2) which states that where there is more than one amendment to a proposition they shall be debated in the order in which they relate to the text of the proposition. So for the vast majority of amendments it is a simple exercise to identify the order in which they are taken by following the text of the proposition.
In the case of P.157/2010 we therefore had to list the amendments to paragraph (a) then those to paragraph (b) etc. Within paragraph (b) there was a direct reference to Summary Table B on page 74 and so, following the requirement of Standing Order 70(2), the amendments were listed in the order to which they related to the list of taxes in that Table, ie income tax, then GST, then Stamp Duty. If you look through the running order used you will see that the order of almost all the amendments was set out automatically in accordance with the above Standing Order requirement.
Occasionally there is more than one amendment to the same part of the text of the proposition and in these case Standing Order 70(3) allows the presiding officer to decide the order in which they are moved. The criteria that will be used in these cases is to try, if at all possible, to ensure that members are given the maximum choice possible in terms of the amendments. Standing Order 70(4) provides that an amendment cannot be proposed if it is inconsistent with an earlier decision taken in the debate and so every attempt is made to list amendments in an order that allows maximum flexibility. The only amendments in P.157/2010 where a judgement was needed (as they related to the same part of the text) were those relating to GST. In the case of these amendments an order was designed to ensure that every option was possible as members progressed through the debate as set out in the aide mémoire I sent around to members a few days before the debate. If, for example, an alternative order had been chosen and the exemptions debate had been taken first and then a 6% GST rate agreed it would have been impossible for any subsequent debate to have taken place on 3% or 4% rates as that would have been inconsistent with the decision taken to go for a 6% rate.
For the sake of completeness I would just mention that where there are amendments to amendments they must, of course, be taken as 'mini debates' after the amendment has been proposed. There was, as a result, no choice other than to list the amendments to amendments (for example the Minister's 6% rate amendment to Deputy Green's amendment on exemptions) immediately after the main amendment itself on the running order.
I hope that helps.'
Only four or so supported Deputy Geoff Southern to keep GST at 3% for a year and so in that sense all the others share the logic of the GST Party, or at least do not reject it fundametally. Like so many they have bought into the need for cuts. We need to reject the whole nonsence of Austerity being economic, when in fact its political.
ReplyDeleteOf course ILM is a paid up member of the GST Party; he would not be trusted otherwise to be a COM member.
Green is a Jersey Tory at heart, but vacillating. He could be won to the path of righteousness were there sufficient progressive forces inside the States and, crucially, externally. Because the working class is not mobilised their anger has no bearing on the political process. Let them rot in their tower blocks; they will never rebel!
Better still lets replace the entire GST Party. Kick them out!
Hi Martin,
ReplyDeleteFYI, Lunches are not longer free for States Members: I flagged up the issue and Shona's proposition in 2009 put a stop to that. I should point out that we get the same % pay rise as public sector workers. As for choking on lunches, I can say that I hope no-one chokes. What we are fighting against is ideological, not personal.
Comment from Martin, edited to avoid any libel:
ReplyDeletemr tadier not personal go let the poor the ones on incomesupport the pensioner,s who are going without food for heating they will not ask but they suffer and you say it,s not personal when you walk past [x's] house see he,s table full of wine tons of food as he sits there on show but unfortunately nobody dose anything but pay lip service that is untill next year when votes are needed were is the accountability no one i talk two has any faith in most of this government mybe it would be better to put all of us the poor the pensioner,s those of us on income support in the all singing all dancing incinrator and be done with it
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2010/12/order-matters.html
ReplyDeleteSee why the order matters, and how Jersey and the UK differ from Europe on how voting is done.
ILM is a paid up member of the GST + exemptions party and has consistently voted that way since elected (it is in his manifesto).
ReplyDeleteJohn Le Fondre, by contrast, is a consitent opponent of exemptions, and has always voted that way (and it was in his manifesto).