Bailhache to (re)declare for Option B

Non-Politician Commission Member, Dr Jonathan Renouf
is supporting Option A

On Monday, Electoral Commission Chairman, Senator Philip Bailhache is set to re-affirm his support publicly for Option B. I say reaffirm, because we have known that he favoured this model in 2011, even before the Electoral Commission had officially come up with it from months of ponderings. The question is whether any of the other members will 'come out' too.

Senator Bailhache made his position quite clear, before he was elected that he favoured the yet-to-be-proposed Option B model. 'I do not support the removal of the Constables from the States... With 12 Constables there would then be 30 other seats. There are ways of dividing up those seats which require discussion. Once the States have found a solution, it should be put to the people for their approval in a referendum.'

Commission Chairman and pre-declared supporter
of the ex-officio role of Constables, Senator Philip Bailhache

It seems that he was clairvoyant because that was actually a recommendation of the Commission, that he chaired. However, his hopes of 'a solution' being found did not quite work out, because the non-States Members on Commission were not willing to run with the idea that only Option B be put to the electorate. This would have been unconscionable for them. They knew that all the independent academic advice and the Commission's own key principles, pointed away from the retention of the Constables with 30 deputies in 6 large districts. And so, we were given this fudge. Not just any fudge, but a Jersey fudge. 

Advisor to the Commission, Dr Alan Renwick, wrote that 'The option of retaining Constables makes overall apportionment worse than at present and in multiple parishes violates the Venice Commission’s criterion. Whether that is considered justifiable is not for me to judge.'

For one Commission member, Dr Jonathan Renouf, this certainly was not acceptable - prompting him, yesterday to come out and declare his support for for Option A as it is the only option to meet the basic democratic test of fairness and equality. 

'Its really very simple - if you support Option A, it is because you believe the electoral system should be based on fairness and equality.' said Dr Renouf. 

'The basic principle of any electoral system is fairness; everybody's vote should count for the same. If you don't have that then you have a situation where people are going to feel aggrieved, bitter and cynical about the system, because ultimately they know their voice is not heard as loudly as other people's voices.'

For some reason, Channel TV and the JEP did not take up the offer of a press conference with Dr Renouf. Apparently it was not newsworthy. However, expect Bailhache and Gorst's support to be front page news and a lead story on Channel, which we know are run by Establishment lackeys, despite some competent reporters. 

This 'outing' of support by such an articulate and erudite Commissioner will surely worry the other campaign teams, not least Senator Bailhache who desperately wants B to succeed in order to stymie any opposition within the States Assembly. It is possible that the other two political members may also join him by declaring their support - certainly Deputy Baker will do as he's told. However, Senator Bailhache will also be mindful that it may not be helpful for him and the other two politicians on the Commission to come out in favour of keeping the Constables and therefore further worsening voter equity in favour of the country, again at the cost of the urban voters. It is entirely possible that he is emailing round the two remaining independent Commissioners right now, in the hope of co-opting their support, however, he may be disappointed that they have integrity and will not simply bow and scrape to his presumed authority, as so many States Members do, unquestioningly.

Footage courtesy of Stewart Lobb via HERE

Cognitive Dissonance and Jersey Reform.

Sen. Philip Bailhache, Chairman of the Electoral Commission

A referendum is coming up in less than 3 weeks. Two campaign groups, the States Assembly and the electoral commission acknowledge the need for States reform, members of one group - Option C - are questioning the need for reform at all. 

So what is the case for reform?

Well, first of all, here is a little teaser. Can you tell me who is the originator of the following quote?

'There is widespread disillusionment with the political process. Some might say perhaps that this reflects the absence of party politics, but it is also a reflection of the relatively complicated and unfair system whereby we elect our representatives.'

When I saw this quote, I wondered who had said this. I thought it might have been me, but it was not particularly my idiom. So I thought it might have been Geoff Southern or more likely, Roy Le Hérissier. But no. Who was it that dare suggest that there could be anything even slightly wrong with our current system of government, and the way in which we ran our elections in Jersey?

Avid JEP reader, Jimmy Perchard

It is certainly a far cry from the idyllic picture painted by former Senator Perchard (who I hear is now campaigning for the abolition of the Senators) who said, on 30th March 2011 that 'Jersey is a great example of democracy; a beacon of democracy that we should hold up high for the world to look at.'

Hide it under a bushel? No! Not Jim, in any case. He was loud and proud of the Jersey system, which he is now, 2 years later, campaigning to change.

So let's put you out of your misery. The person who disagrees with Senator Perchard, that thinks Jersey is a not shining beacon of democracy, but a 'relatively complicated and unfair system' is none other than Seigneur Bailache lui-même. 

So the question is, now that it has been established beyond doubt, that Jersey's system needs change: what do we do about it?

Well, we have two options on the table. A or B. So which should we go for?

Senator Bailhache told us on 20th February 2013 that:

 'Reform option B creates greater voter inequity than we have at the moment.'

So, that naturally means that the Senator is supporting option A, (right?) which is fairer, more democratic and less complicated (his original reason for bringing reform). WRONG. Senator Bailhache is supporting Option B because he wants to make the system even more inequitable that it is at the moment. 

This is the man who topped the poll islandwide, but he has campaigned to change our entire electoral system which he thinks is unfair and he wants to replace it with something that is even more unfair.

This is an example of cognitive dissonance of the highest order. 

Of course, the Jersey mainstream media do not pick up on this contradiction in the system, in the same way they do not ask why Pierre Horsfall has done a U-Turn on the Constables, and is now supporting Option B. 

Option A - the Fairest Way

As part of the series of posts on Reform, ahead of the referendumon 24 Apil I am pleased post this latest interview which summarises some of the arguments in favour of Option A.

The first video is a short. The full interview can be seen below.

Thanks go to the prodigious Tom Gruchy for providing the filming and uploading. 

Short Version

Full interview (10 minutes)

Option A: Clear. Fair. Simple.

Over the next few weeks, I will be making a series of posts on the referendum, to encourage people to vote, and to choose Option A on 24th April. Remember you have until Wed. 3rd April to register, if you are not currently on the roll. If you have recently moved house or have just completed 2 years in the island, it is worth checking your status. You can find more info HERE. 

I am pleased to reproduce below a very good letter by Grouville resident, Wayne Le Cuirot, who sets out a clear case for Option A as the only viable reform option on the table. 

The A Team is the official group campaigning for Option A
and is a coalition of groups and individuals from diverse backgrounds
and political persuasions who see fairness and democracy as fundamental to government reform.

----------------

'The forthcoming referendum on our electoral system has seen the debate focus on the future role  of the Constables. I do feel it needs emphasising that Option A, while the fairest of the three alternatives, does also provide the opportunity for Constables to stand for the States  in the  six proposed districts. They would also still be head of their parochial system to which they would  have more time to devote towards if unelected to the chamber.

In the rural parishes a contested Constable's election is the exception rather than the rule, indeed in the last 'General Election' three quarters of the Constable  seats did not result in an election whilst in St Ouen the parish had its first such election  in over a hundred years. The  dual role of the Constables as head of each parish's honorary system together with being a States member means that most people do not feel comfortable standing for the role. Contesting an election against a sitting Constable is still seen in many quarters as a surprising thing to do and often intimated to be divisive and not in the interests of the parish. Consequently comparatively few   elections for the post are seen whilst few candidates of any calibre are prepared to put themselves forward. If there is a genuine desire for all States members to be regarded as equals, then the ability of people to stand for such a role should be so too. While it is difficult for a Constable to claim to have any more affinity for their parishioners than their colleagues on the Deputy benches it can be seen that the great majority of issues debated in the States legislature relate to issues for the  Island as a whole and any voting system must reflect this.

The interim report handed to each household by the Electoral Commission  states 'if the Constables are included in a system of large electoral districts, it will make inequality of representation even worse than under the present system.' This clearly indicates that any vote in favour of incorporating the separate position of the Constables into the new proposals  will end up with a system less representative of its people than before! In a world that is keeping ever closer eyes on the workings of this Island, an electoral system that results in 12/42 of the members being in a capacity that rarely faces a contested election will be seen as a move away from a fair and equal system rather than a reform towards one. In effect we would have Senators who face regular elections and an Island wide mandate being dropped altogether to be replaced by a system with a higher proportional representation for members who do not have either.

The  referendum on 24 April can be seen as a most important election which we should all participate in. It should not become a debate  dominated by those who have most to lose and which on election day the Constables' supporters turn out to keep them in the States while the large majority of the rest of the electorate  show their usual apathy and stay away from the polling booths. Consequently by default we will be left  idiotically with  a representative system that by the commission's own reasoning will be worse than the present one and does not meet the requirements of the Venice Convention.

So why is such an effort being made to keep the Constables in the States while the far more representative figures of the Senators are being removed with barely a word? A cynical interpretation could lie in the voting records of the Constables, three quarters of whose default setting appears to be the backing of the large majority of proposed legislation from the Council of Ministers.  Even if as a consequence of future changes the council were reduced by twenty percent to eight ministers, with the combination of the eight assistant ministers and the reliable support of eight Constables any future Council would secure an immediate inbuilt majority by securing 24 out of the 42 members which may be  seen as a recipe for poor government.

The problem of an improved electoral system for such a small Island is hardly a Gordian knot of intricacy. The simplest solution is surely Option A whereby all States members whether they be Deputies, Senators or Constables  stand in whichever of the six already devised constituencies they live in. Whoever gets the most votes gets elected, every elector will have seven directly elected representatives who they could contact whenever they required and that perhaps would be how anywhere else in the world would do it, even Guernsey has managed to follow a similar process with success surely it is not beyond the wit of this island to do the same.'

------

If you interested in helping to campaign for Option A, then please contact christine@theATeam.org.je

Keir Starmer, the Dean and the Jersey Abuse Inquiry



Former Children's Home, Haut de la Garenne, pcitured in 2008

Almost five years to the day that a rally was held in Jersey in support of Child Abuse victims, following revelations of widespread 'historic' abuse, spanning decades, the States Assembly (Jersey's Parliament) voted 43 votes to 0 to set up a Committee of Inquiry into the abuse on Wednesday 6th March.

Time4Change Rally, in support of Abuse survivors 8 March 2008

CPS Overhaul

Keir Starmer:
'We cannot afford another Savile moment in 5 or ten years time"

It was the same day that Keir Starmer, Director of the England's Public Prosecutions, announced the need for far reaching reforms of police and prosecution for sexual abuse offences, and just days before the Jersey’s Anglican Dean, The Rt Rev. Bob Key, was suspended for his handling of a vulnerable woman’s complaint of abusive behaviour by a church-warden, Jersey’s The CoI is expected to last one year and cost around £6m (full report HERE)

Jersey's Chief Minister, Ian Gorst

Jersey’s Chief Minister Ian Gorst said: “It is right for us today to approve this CoI but I don’t want members to be shocked by some of the stories that we as a government and members of the community will hear throughout that process, because some will be shocking.

“I hope the CoI will help us to learn lessons from past failings. As I have said, it may not be pleasant, but it is something that we as a government and as a community must face up to.”

'Persistent Lobbying'

“The Terms of Reference for this Inquiry have been disputed from the day they were published.” said Deputy Montfort Tadier. 'In fact, in late 2010, we were told there was going to be no inquiry. But persistent lobbying by campaigners - abuse survivors - Bloggers and a small handful of politicians (past and present) - has ensured that the final TOR are fit for purpose. No aspect of child abuse in Jersey will be overlooked. It is a great victory for grass roots democracy.” (see below for TOR)

Carrie Modral, JCLA Chairman

Jubilant child abuse campaigners welcomed the decision. “It’s a great day,” said Carrie Modral, chairman of the Jersey Care Leavers Association (JCLA).

“The police investigation came to an end in December 2010 whereupon our Chief Minister at the time, Terry le Sueur, tore up the long-standing pledge to hold a full public inquiry. Now, at last, we know that the CoI will happen and we are cautiously optimistic that the abuse victims will be heard.”

-o0o-

 Terms of Reference, as approved by the States of Jersey on 6th March 2013

(Parts in bold are the amendments secured by the lobbyists)

The Committee of Inquiry (“the Committee”) is asked to do the following –

1. Establish the type and nature of children’s homes and fostering services in Jersey in the period under review, that is the post-war period, with a particular focus on the period after 1960. Consider (in general terms) why children were placed and maintained in these services.

2. Determine the organisation (including recruitment and supervision of staff), management, governance and culture of children’s homes and any other establishments caring for children, run by the States and in other non-States run establishments providing for children, where abuse has been alleged, in the period under review and consider whether these aspects of these establishments were adequate.

3. Examine the political and other oversight of children’s homes and fostering services and other establishments run by the States with a particular focus on oversight by the various Education Committees between 1960 and 1995, by the various Health and Social Services Committees between 1996 and 2005, and by ministerial government from 2006 to the current day.

4. Examine the political and societal environment during the period under review and its effect on the oversight of children’s homes, fostering services and other establishments run by the States, on the reporting or non-reporting of abuse within or outside such organisations, on the response to those reports of abuse by all agencies and by the public, on the eventual police and any other investigations, and on the eventual outcomes.

5. Establish a chronology of significant changes in childcare practice and policy during the period under review, with reference to Jersey and the UK in order to identify the social and professional norms under which the services in Jersey operated throughout the period under review.

6. Take into account the independent investigations and reports conducted in response to the concerns raised in 2007, and any relevant information that has come to light during the development and progression of the Redress Scheme.

7. Consider the experiences of those witnesses who suffered abuse or believe that they suffered abuse, and hear from staff who worked in these services, together with any other relevant witnesses. It will be for the Committee to determine, by balancing the interests of justice and the public interest against the presumption of openness, whether, and to what extent, all or any of the evidence given to it should be given in private. The Committee, in accordance with Standing Order 147(2), will have the power to conduct hearings in private if the Chairman and members consider this to be appropriate.

8. Identify how and by what means concerns about abuse were raised and how, and to whom, they were reported. Establish whether systems existed to allow children and others to raise concerns and safeguard their wellbeing, whether these systems were adequate, and any failings they had.

9. Review the actions of the agencies of the government, the justice system and politicians during the period under review, in particular when concerns came to light about child abuse and establish what, if any, lessons are to be learned.

10. Consider how the Education and Health and Social Services Departments dealt with concerns about alleged abuse, what action they took, whether these actions were in line with the policies and procedures of the day, and whether those policies and procedures were adequate.

11. Establish whether, where abuse was suspected, it was reported to the appropriate bodies, including the States of Jersey Police; what action was taken by persons or entities including the police, and whether this was in line with policies and procedures of the day and whether those policies and procedures were adequate.

12. Determine whether the concerns in 2007 were sufficient to justify the States of Jersey Police setting in train ‘Operation Rectangle’.

13. Establish the process by which files were submitted by the States of Jersey Police to the prosecuting authorities for consideration, and establish –

• Whether those responsible for deciding on which cases to prosecute took a professional approach;

• Whether the process was free from political or other interference at any level.

If, for these purposes, or as a result of evidence given under paragraph 7, in the opinion of the Chairman of the Committee, it would be of assistance that one or more of the prosecution files underpinning any prosecution decision may be examined in a manner to be determined by the Committee.

14. Set out what lessons can be learned for the current system of residential and foster care services in Jersey and for third party providers of services for children and young people in the Island.

15. Report on any other issues arising during the Inquiry considered to be relevant to the past safety of children in residential or foster care and other establishments run by the States, and whether these issues affect the safety of children in the future.

Meet the 'A Team'

A campaign group called The A Team has been formed to vigorously promote “Option A” in the forthcoming referendum on constitutional reform, recommended by the Electoral Commission and endorsed by The States of Jersey last week when approving the Act establishing the Referendum.

Under Reform Option A: Parish Constables will no longer be members of the States; there will be 42 States members known as Deputies; there will be six large districts, each choosing seven Deputies.

 'Constables for the Parishes. Deputies for the States.'

“Under Option A, Constables will still be elected to lead their parish and will be able to put all their efforts into their parish role, rather than being obliged to split their time between the parish and the increasingly demanding work of a States member,” said Christine Vibert, the group’s secretary and spokesman. “It means that someone who wants to stand as Connétable to serve the parish is not forced to be a States Member if they don’t want to be. They can also stand for election as a Deputy at the General Election, but the choice is theirs.”

The campaigners believe that Option A is simple and clear. It has many benefits and in particular it:

• is the most democratic of the three options

• can increase voter participation

• can reinvigorate parish life

“We are very enthusiastic about the potential that Option A has to re-energise Jersey politics and resolve the democratic deficit that exists in our current system. We would like to hear from fellow supporters who would like to join The A Team.”

Anyone interested in joining and/or helping The A Team is asked to contact Christine Vibert christine@theATeam.org.je or telephone /text 07797 732558.

The referendum will be held on Wednesday 24th April. The last day to register for the electoral roll in your parish is noon on Wednesday 3rd April.

Did you hear the one about the Politician who took a pay increase?

There is an old joke that about lawyers that goes: 'Isn't it a shame how it's the 99% a bad lawyers that give the other 1% a bad name.' Substitute lawyer for politician and you have a ready made joke next time you bump into your local States Member.

As a quick aside, I was interested to hear the evidence given by Advocate Fogarty at a public scrutiny hearing on the mental health of prisoners. She is clearly someone with a great deal of experience in the Jersey legal system and of representing defendants with mental health related issues. She was quite robust in her comments that parts of the system across the board are letting vulnerable people down, and need addressing urgently, commenting also on issues of understaffing, wrong or no diagnoses and an absence of adequate facilities for people with psychiatric issues in Jersey. More on that scrutiny review can be found here by Citizen's journalist, Tom Gruchy (all thoughts are his own).

The reason I bring this issue up is to contextualise. Whilst jokes about the motivation, efficacy and ethics or Advocates and States Members about, I still believe that the vast majority of them go into for basically the right reasons. They want to make a difference and make one for the better. I believe this in the case of Tories, Socialists, Republicans, Democrats and people across the spectrum. I don't agree that all of them are right and often, I believe they are blind by the 'unintended' consequences' of their politics, but they generally want to make a positive difference. Of course, politics will always attract those on the megalomaniac/psychotic spectrum - which is maybe one reason why women are often not attracted to politics. But, hey, who amongst us is perfect?

Today, I am posting my response to Lucy Stephenson, who has written much recently on States Members pay, and who wants to know which of us States Members is taking our below cost of living pay adjustment ( to use politically correct, but also factual terms).

Whilst she is correct that States Members pay is a matter of public interest, I feel that the perennial tone of the discussion, with the media in general (the Channel TV coverage was perhaps even more facile), lacks any meaningful criticism. I have subsequently corresponded with Lucy to re-iterate that none of the comments are personal, but reflect primarily on the caliber of the J.E.Pravda (accountability is a two way street):

JEP journalist, Lucy Stephenson

Letter to Lucy

Hi Lucy,

Why are you only interested in how we are spending the below inflation 1.8 cost of living adjustment that States Members have been awarded, when the remaining 98.2% is also paid by the tax payer? Surely in the public interest, you should be asking us what we are going to be doing with that money also.Have you also thought to look into the pay affairs of the Crown Officers, Bailiff, Attorney General, etc, who are also public servants, but of a different kind? Do you even know whether they are receiving a pay increase? If so, is it more or less than us. Or does JEP populism turn into deference when it comes to these figures?Are you aware that the Crown Officers (they will correct me if I'm wrong) and other Public employee groups also receive incremental pay increases based on length of service? This does not apply to States members.Are you also aware that States Member's pay has fallen behind that of equivalently paid civil servants when benchmarked against? Since 2004, States members pay has consistently lagged in relative terms, as can be seen by the very useful stat attached in this link: (http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyPropositions/2012/P.127-2012Com(2).pdf#search=p.127) quite ably produced courtesy of the States Greffe.This kind of information is not often reported as it does not fit with the populist, 'all politicians are useless kind of mantra' that low quality tabloids like yours are keen to pursue.The most sinister consequence of this populist and partial reporting is that it inadvertently, or by design breeds despondency among the public. It seeks to tar us all with the same brush. It does QUITE RIGHTLY tap into the fact that people out there are suffering, and that we live in an un-equal world, but rather than offering any critical analysis as to why this is the case it takes the easy way out and and targets an easy scape goat.The real questions to ask are 'why is it that we live in an economy where wages, for the majority, do not keep up with inflation?' 'Why do the rich, even and especially in Jersey, get richer whilst the poor, on whose labour their wealth is built, get poorer and continually more oppressed, so they are forced increasingly into State dependency?'These are the kind of questions I would expect from both politicians and journalists. These questions are asked by politicians, although we are a minority in Jersey. They are asked by journalists of most papers everywhere else, whether left, centre or right, but in Jersey there is never any analysis or questioning of the economic model which harms our own people. Why is this?Lastly, to return to my point of 'tarring-with-the -same brush.' There are those politicians in Jersey, in a minority, who fight for workers to be able to have a real cost of living adjustment. You would do well to look at those politicians who voted against the 'modest' increases in minimum wage and against pay rises for public employees in recent years. This is where the inconsistency lies. please do not group me with these.

Kind regards,

Montfort Tadier