Last night we were at the Royal Jersey Agriculture and Horticulture Society showground in Trinity. I arrived early because I was traveling by public transport again. The society had sent out a suggestion of three points to cover in our presentations. For me it was pretty straightforward to work them into the material I usually talk about at the hustings It was an interesting mix of approaches taken by the candidates whose main platform has little bearing on agriculture or countryside issues. They ranged from Lyndon Farnham who gave pretty much his usual pitch to Mr Bailhache who spoke specifically on the topic. Stuart Syvret was first up and spoke about resilience and the significance of peak oil to out future and the industry. Unsurprisingly same of that was also in my presentation at number 11, along side climate change, food security and world population growth leading to the need for more self reliance in energy and food.
The first question was from John Heys. He pointed out only 0.5% of GDP was agriculture and shouldn't the balance be different and what to do about increasing that percentage. A lot had already been said by the time it got to me. I commented, uniquely, that food production and security is a strategic issues not just a commercial one. It is not the first time we have faced this situation. In 1608 we passed a law to prevent men knitting during the vraicing and harvesting seasons. Even four hundred years ago people understood that earning good money was one thing, but looking after the essentials,like having adequate food to eat, was also necessary. learn from history.
Mike Dun asked why we had agricultural workers living in portakabins, but this was unacceptable in finance. There was consensus that it was not acceptable.I also poor housing conditions for anyone was a cost to society in latter health problems, and that needs to be factored into looking at the costs and affordability of upgrading or replacing accommodation.
We were asked whether to much money and consideration was given to 'middle class dinner plate' topics rather than real agriculture and fishing. Most seems to be agreeing that might be the case. I refuted the premise of the question on the basis that the soil and cops are part of ecological systems and the external elements like pollinators and saprophytes are important. Removal or loss of a key species can totally alter the balance.
Peter Le Maistre asked who on the panel would be bold enough to support genetic modification of the Jersey Royal to protect from blight and eelworm. Easy one for me that. My fields are certified organic, I'm a supported of the Jersey Organic Association and the UK Soil Association . They are against GMO and so an I. The surprising bit of that was the amount of applause from the audience for my reply.
Tom Gruchy has posted a link with the speeches by me, Mr Bailhaches and Mr Cohen. 'Tom' has a different take on the best use of the land - housing- and prefers to see agriculture in purely financial contribution terms than as a strategic food security provision. http://tomgruchy.blogspot.com/2011/10/senatorial-eulogies-for-green.html
Showing posts with label Hustings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hustings. Show all posts
St Mary hustings and interesting questions.
A packed St Mary Parish Hall on Friday night and some of the best questions of the hustings so far, ranking alongside those of the youth hustings. I spoke first and was hence almost last to answer all the questions.
The first question came from deputy Wimberley. He asked how we would get more honesty into the debate on States spending. He cited the example that we spend less than other OECD countries as a proportion of GNI or equivalent, yet we are told spending is out of control and some want faster deeper cuts. Several candidates seemed either to not follow the argument, or to talk about consultation. No one that I recall, even those who have been talking cuts and reducing spending at other hustings, disagreed with the deputies key factual observation above, though Mr Pearce drew a different conclusion on spending from other comparisons.
My response was that to have a debate it is essential to make the accounting transparent. I have listened to States debates on the radio and it is astounding how monies, not in the budget, can be found for pet projects from odd pots of money. The public have little to no chance of following such opaque operations.
We also need to have some basic numerical analysis applied. For example I was at the health consultation at St Paul’s the other month. We were presented with three scenarios stretching 30 years into the future. But the variation in the projects costs was only 10%. Such projects could easily have errors or variability in excess of 10% so the comparison is rather meaningless. But those error bands or expected variabilities were not presented.
The second question was the ubiquitous electoral reform one – should we have a referendum and should it also have support from each parish to be passed. The answers were pretty much unanimous of supporting a referendum and against a parish veto.
Question three was a really interesting one that had also been raised at the St Mary deputy hustings. To paraphrase, what did candidates think of the proposed Intellectual Property law and its implication in education and other areas. Most candidates clearly had no idea. A couple talked of copyright and protecting the interests of authors and artists. Mr Bailhache, who should know something of it being a lawyer by background, merely saw it as a commercial opportunity for lawyers and trademark and patent specialists, and a diversification of the economy. But he did not answer the questions. Neither really did the other lawyer on the platform, advocate Colley give a clear answer. She gave the typical lawyer on the one hand on the other hand response to a question they do not know how to answer.
While I agree it has earning opportunities for lawyers and some other specialists, it is not a legal question, it is not something to be left to lawyers. It is a mater of public policy. I did not answer the education bit specifically, but addressed the other area part of the question. Is it right that bio-tech companies can claim ‘ownership’ of parts of the human genome and then demand payment for therapies based on that, or withhold right to treatment altogether? Is it acceptable that companies like Monsanto can claim rights on a gene found in nature and the sue subsistence farmers for saving the own seed as they have for thousands of years because it contains the companies ‘proprietary’ gene?
I also pointed out, from my personal experience as a research engineer, that it will not protect individual knowledge creators as they usual have their rights signed away as a condition of employment. I ran out of time to continue. The only other person on the platform who appeared to understand the question and respond appropriately was Stuart Syvret who commented on the ongoing patent wars of Samsung , Apple and the like and the problems surrounding that.
There was a questions on the statement in the education green paper on student who can benefit should have their choice of course influenced by costs. Ie funding students. One or two brought up not paying for irrelevant courses, or having loans. The consensus seemed to be the need to fund all students adequately.
The final question was on whether Jersey should look at a windfall tax as they have in the past and may again do in the UK, specifically to pay for our infrastructure bill. The majority seemed to be against. Senator Le Gresley was for a windfall tax on land rezoning gains (I agree) but went on to say he would like to 'whack' the finance industry, if he could. Top marks for political honesty there, but I think it is an impractical proposition while so much of our economy and people’s jobs depends on it.
Stuart Syvret was not wholly against the concept but interpreted it as a form of capital gains taxation.
My preference and priority as expressed in the meeting is to find a way to tax non-resident trading companies, who currently contribute no tax. Our infrastructure problem is of the States own making. We have only recently moved to GAAP accounting and using depreciation. We have known for decades we need to do something about the sea defences the Germans put in. The situation with the States housing stock is indefensible – tenants have paid their money as rents but we have not done the repairs. It is not fair on them, and it is allowing a major asset to deteriorate- madness. In retrospect I should have referred to question one on this point to – honesty in accounts.
The first question came from deputy Wimberley. He asked how we would get more honesty into the debate on States spending. He cited the example that we spend less than other OECD countries as a proportion of GNI or equivalent, yet we are told spending is out of control and some want faster deeper cuts. Several candidates seemed either to not follow the argument, or to talk about consultation. No one that I recall, even those who have been talking cuts and reducing spending at other hustings, disagreed with the deputies key factual observation above, though Mr Pearce drew a different conclusion on spending from other comparisons.
My response was that to have a debate it is essential to make the accounting transparent. I have listened to States debates on the radio and it is astounding how monies, not in the budget, can be found for pet projects from odd pots of money. The public have little to no chance of following such opaque operations.
We also need to have some basic numerical analysis applied. For example I was at the health consultation at St Paul’s the other month. We were presented with three scenarios stretching 30 years into the future. But the variation in the projects costs was only 10%. Such projects could easily have errors or variability in excess of 10% so the comparison is rather meaningless. But those error bands or expected variabilities were not presented.
The second question was the ubiquitous electoral reform one – should we have a referendum and should it also have support from each parish to be passed. The answers were pretty much unanimous of supporting a referendum and against a parish veto.
Question three was a really interesting one that had also been raised at the St Mary deputy hustings. To paraphrase, what did candidates think of the proposed Intellectual Property law and its implication in education and other areas. Most candidates clearly had no idea. A couple talked of copyright and protecting the interests of authors and artists. Mr Bailhache, who should know something of it being a lawyer by background, merely saw it as a commercial opportunity for lawyers and trademark and patent specialists, and a diversification of the economy. But he did not answer the questions. Neither really did the other lawyer on the platform, advocate Colley give a clear answer. She gave the typical lawyer on the one hand on the other hand response to a question they do not know how to answer.
While I agree it has earning opportunities for lawyers and some other specialists, it is not a legal question, it is not something to be left to lawyers. It is a mater of public policy. I did not answer the education bit specifically, but addressed the other area part of the question. Is it right that bio-tech companies can claim ‘ownership’ of parts of the human genome and then demand payment for therapies based on that, or withhold right to treatment altogether? Is it acceptable that companies like Monsanto can claim rights on a gene found in nature and the sue subsistence farmers for saving the own seed as they have for thousands of years because it contains the companies ‘proprietary’ gene?
I also pointed out, from my personal experience as a research engineer, that it will not protect individual knowledge creators as they usual have their rights signed away as a condition of employment. I ran out of time to continue. The only other person on the platform who appeared to understand the question and respond appropriately was Stuart Syvret who commented on the ongoing patent wars of Samsung , Apple and the like and the problems surrounding that.
There was a questions on the statement in the education green paper on student who can benefit should have their choice of course influenced by costs. Ie funding students. One or two brought up not paying for irrelevant courses, or having loans. The consensus seemed to be the need to fund all students adequately.
The final question was on whether Jersey should look at a windfall tax as they have in the past and may again do in the UK, specifically to pay for our infrastructure bill. The majority seemed to be against. Senator Le Gresley was for a windfall tax on land rezoning gains (I agree) but went on to say he would like to 'whack' the finance industry, if he could. Top marks for political honesty there, but I think it is an impractical proposition while so much of our economy and people’s jobs depends on it.
Stuart Syvret was not wholly against the concept but interpreted it as a form of capital gains taxation.
My preference and priority as expressed in the meeting is to find a way to tax non-resident trading companies, who currently contribute no tax. Our infrastructure problem is of the States own making. We have only recently moved to GAAP accounting and using depreciation. We have known for decades we need to do something about the sea defences the Germans put in. The situation with the States housing stock is indefensible – tenants have paid their money as rents but we have not done the repairs. It is not fair on them, and it is allowing a major asset to deteriorate- madness. In retrospect I should have referred to question one on this point to – honesty in accounts.
Youth and Student Hustings and the Contruction Council
Yesterday was a busy day. I had to go to the Channel Television studios to record a short piece for them about my 'manifesto' . Immediately after that I walked up to Hautlieu for the Student and Youth hustings. I arrived early and had a chance to met the head teacher, Mrs Toms. The room we used was well laid out and good acoustics., we could probably have managed without the microphones. I counted 23 of the appropriate age group attended, not including deputy Tadier who attended for most of the meeting. Congratulations to Ryan for chairing the meeting and keeping the answers to the time limit enabling more questions than we've had at the other senatorial hustings.
I went off my usual approach for my presentation at this hustings, and without notes. I focused on oil supplies, climate change and tax. I outlined the importance of oil to the world's economy, and the fact production has flat lined and we've used half of known reserves. On climate change we are beyond CO2 concentrations that people originally thought were safe. Even if we halted all emissions those gases would be in the atmosphere and affecting climate for another 20 to 30 years. My generation is significantly responsible for the problem , we have known it was coming but we carried on consuming and polluting beyond what the planet could support. The cost is falling on future generation, and for that I apologised.
I also pointed out that iniquities in parts of our tax system. All those in the room pay tax, GST, even if they have no income or earnings - that's the epitome of a regressive tax system. I also pointed out if they set up a self-employed business they would likely have to pay 6% employees social security, 6 1/2 % employers social security, and up to 20% tax on the profits, even if not actually taken out, thanks to deemed distributions. A non Jersey owned business doing exactly the same would not pay that 20%. if you r competitor happened to be a 1.1.k he or she is likely already paying the ceiling social security and at the threshold in tax. That competition is paying 1% tax on the profits -more than 30% advantage over the school leaver setting going self-employed. That is no way to incentivise enterprise and innovation. Given the huge problems we face from oil dependence and climate change we need every bit of those skills - innovation and enterprise.
I thought at one point I had won the election. In reply to a question on climate change and oil dependency all the candidates said one way to another we were not doing enough. Since the core basis of my campaign is that we are not doing enough and have not set up a proper detailed credible plan to meet things like C02 emission reduction targets, that felt like a victory to me.
Immediately after the hustings it was down to the award winning Radisson Hotel for a presentation and event with the Jersey Construction Council. It seemed to boil down to fiscal stimulus was a great success, can we have some more please, and what are you going to do to help us. I have family contacts in the part so the construction industry, and my view of fiscal stimulus effects on smaller business is not as rosy as portrayed. Those business whose clientele are private householders don't see any benefit while others in the industry get a hand out of work to keep them going through hard times. It is not a level playing field.
I am happy to support the need for training and not just vocational skills, but also things like running a small business since the overwhelming majority of construction companies are 5 or fewer employees and almost half are one man bands it seems. As someone who is keen on economic diversity I went to the event interested in supporting the industry through difficulties , especially where they are using local staff and materials, and circulating the money in the local economy. Those who's work is in maintenance and extending the life of existing building is an all round good thing to do. But we know the big money and the big players are in new builds and big schemes, and this is really where the focus lays when people talk of supporting the industry.What I heard and the approach of the Council did more to put me off than to foster that opinion.
It seems only Mr Cohen and one other person understands the mechanics of determining affordable housing in new developments. I find it very concerning that after the election we may have only one person who understands the scheme. I have never really understood how people could consider £260,000 affordable by people on typical incomes outside the finance industry. The reason became clearer last night.The definition of affordable is what is negotiated as affordable for developers to offer, not what is affordable by people to buy.
One other point to note about the Construction Council. It's membership is nearly 100 companies. But there are more than 1100 businesses in the construction sector in Jersey.
St Ouen Hustings and reform
I have been remiss in not posting about the St Ouen husting on the 28th. In part that is because I was feeling so unwell on the day with a heavy cold and sore throat I struggled greatly just to get through the meeting. I do not read out a prepared speech at the hustings. I do have a few headings I use as prompts to make sure I get some sort of logical flow. A lot of what I am concerned to articulate and explain is interconnected and it is easy to come across all disconnected and vague otherwise. It also means I can respond to other comments in other candidate's speeches if necessary.
Two things stood out for me about the St Ouen husting. First was the absence of key sitting ministers like Sen Ozouf and Maclean and Mr Rankine, who appeared to be at all the other hustings. I'm not sure why and whether that says anything about St Ouen , or the missing observers. It wasn't because there was another husting that evening. The second observation was how people became keen to dig out their St Ouen family connections (A'Courts dominated!). It hasn't happened anywhere else, and I doubt it shall. Perhaps it is a subconscious recognition that in this parish we have a sense of belonging and local community that is strong and candidates fell the need to associate with it.
For the St Ouen husting I changed the content somewhat away from my usual stuff on why food and fuel prices are rising faster than earnings, and how my agenda for diversifying the economy and becoming more self reliant in food and alternative energy could help reverse that over time, and create more local jobs and give a bit more choice of careers. It was still there of course ,as was food security, and oil dependency, and community cohesion. But because of the date I had to talk about constitutional reform.
September 28th is important in Jersey for two reasons. First, it is the date Guillaume (William) landed at Pevensey with his army to assert his claim on the crown of England, as promised him by Edward the Confessor. It was the success of that campaign that created the link between Normandy and the English Crown, and hence laid the foundations of our constitutional position.
Second it is important because on that date in 1769 that around 500 people descended on the Royal Court. They were demanding that laws be written down, that there should be consultation before laws were passed and an end to certain food exports. Just like in the Arab world today the underlying political discontent was set alight by problems in staple food prices. Back then the wealthy land owners were exporting wheat to France to get a better price, which drove up prices locally. Since rents and rates were based on quarters of wheat, this drove up those prices too. A vicious double whammy for the ordinary islander of the day. The upshot of the mini revolution was, among others, the removal by the Privy Council of the corrupt Attorney General, and the adoption of a code of laws.
Constitutional reform is not a feature of my election campaign, but there are 4 candidates in the senatorial election for whom it is their main issue.We made a mistake in not putting Clothier to a referendum , and simply letting the States cherry pick bits. In fact I would argue we should put constitutional changes to the people in a referendum on principle. It is about the only time a referendum should be used.
I am a big fan of local and decentralised systems for food and energy production. I want to apply that to government too. For us in Jersey that means the parish level and I warned those candidates concentrating on constitutional reform that anything that undermines the local and parish level would not be well received by the public.
I had previously made a couple of other observations about constitutional reform that I did not have time to do on the 28th. Various reasons are given by the different candidates for pressing for change. Some are more logical than others. I can see that reducing numbers would reduce costs (States members pay), However claiming that States reform , especially reducing numbers, would lead to improved quality and fewer questions and no 'unimportant back bench propositions' does not follow, either logically or politically.
It is not a given that more questions are a bad thing. That may reflect poor decision and policy making on the part of the Council of Ministers-so there is more to question., In part I think in recent years it also indicates a greater volume of work and increasingly complex legislation being brought forward.
There is an important question to be asked about the quality of States members, and the importance or otherwise of backbench propositions. Who decides what is quality, and what is important? In a representative democracy that is the decision for the electors to make. If they are unhappy with their representatives they lobby them, and if still dissatisfied with their quality or actions then reject them at election time. Those who want to change this mechanism need to specify who they would set up as judge and jury in place of the democratic decision of the people and explain exactly why that is better than democracy. They will find it very hard to convince me as, to paraphrase Churchill, democracy is the least worst of the systems we have tried.
Logically it follows that a reduced number of States members would likely result in a reduced range of opinion and political divergence in the Assembly. I happen to believe in diversity as an essential aspect of stable and resilient systems, be they ecological, economic or political. I find that argument for reducing numbers unconvincing. Moreover logically what you lose at the low quality however defined end, you also risk losing at the high quality, however defined end. There is simply no guarantee that changing numbers changes the quality of members or debate, even if that were desirable.
To my mind the key issues that give rise to many of the arguments for reform are caused by other aspects of our political system. First is the partisan way ministerial government has happened in the last 3 years. Our current chief minister has chosen to nominate his political friends and allies to ministerial post, rather than a broad cross-section of the political views in the assembly . In doing so he has also undermined the role of senator by leaving so many out of ministerial posts, The inevitable consequence is that those without ministerial or assistant ministerial posts are consigned to scrutiny or oblivion. Unsurprisingly therefore scrutiny has become a centre of opposition, rather than its proper role. So now that part of the apparatus does not function, and there is a dearth of a formal check and balance mechanism. At this point I invite you to review the item above about the number of questions in the assembly, and why that has happened, and whether it is a bad or a good thing.
The second reason is to do with the premise on which members are elected, and the low turn out in our elections. There are two things noticeably absent from our election system. They are that the electorate cannot vote for a fully formed, all embracing, costed and planned out programme of government. The other is that the mechanics do not allow debate and testing of the policy platform between candidates. We are limited to electing 51 individuals not one of whom can possibly have a fully enough detailed progamme on their own, and whose 'manifesto' cannot possibly be implemented in its entirety anyway. In short there is nothing for which we can hold the members, and the council of ministers in particular, to collective account. We are reduced to buying the sales and marketing brochure pitch with no trading standards equivalent right of redress when the service provided does not match up.
There are arguments for States reform, and voting reform too, based on equality of representation and proportionality of votes. Immediately it is obvious here the difficult point is the Connétables. With parishes varying in number of electors by a factor of 10 , proportionality is not achievable if they are the only parish representation. Yet as I have indicated I, and I think a lot of other people too, am very keen on the localised government represented by the parishes.
The obvious solution to my mind is to retain Connétables in the assembly, with a special responsibility for heading up scrutiny, but without a vote in the assembly. This retains a voice for parishes, especially those bigger ones that comprise multiple deputy districts, and retains the mechanism of the requete etc. It would be necessary to remove the policing functions to the Chefs de Police. In effect the Connétables would take on the responsibilities of a revising second house, albeit in the same chamber.
Without a vote the proportionality issue is much less troublesome and with a secure voice in the chamber for each parish, the way is freed up to have non parish bounded constituencies, or just one island wide constituency if that was desired. I have no strong view on this, though I note surveys have suggested people strongly favour the island wide mandate. Whichever way, if we have multi-member constituencies we must have some form of PR if we are to have any sort of representative chamber.
Worryingly that seems to put me rather close to the camp of the conservative forces.
Two things stood out for me about the St Ouen husting. First was the absence of key sitting ministers like Sen Ozouf and Maclean and Mr Rankine, who appeared to be at all the other hustings. I'm not sure why and whether that says anything about St Ouen , or the missing observers. It wasn't because there was another husting that evening. The second observation was how people became keen to dig out their St Ouen family connections (A'Courts dominated!). It hasn't happened anywhere else, and I doubt it shall. Perhaps it is a subconscious recognition that in this parish we have a sense of belonging and local community that is strong and candidates fell the need to associate with it.
For the St Ouen husting I changed the content somewhat away from my usual stuff on why food and fuel prices are rising faster than earnings, and how my agenda for diversifying the economy and becoming more self reliant in food and alternative energy could help reverse that over time, and create more local jobs and give a bit more choice of careers. It was still there of course ,as was food security, and oil dependency, and community cohesion. But because of the date I had to talk about constitutional reform.
September 28th is important in Jersey for two reasons. First, it is the date Guillaume (William) landed at Pevensey with his army to assert his claim on the crown of England, as promised him by Edward the Confessor. It was the success of that campaign that created the link between Normandy and the English Crown, and hence laid the foundations of our constitutional position.
Second it is important because on that date in 1769 that around 500 people descended on the Royal Court. They were demanding that laws be written down, that there should be consultation before laws were passed and an end to certain food exports. Just like in the Arab world today the underlying political discontent was set alight by problems in staple food prices. Back then the wealthy land owners were exporting wheat to France to get a better price, which drove up prices locally. Since rents and rates were based on quarters of wheat, this drove up those prices too. A vicious double whammy for the ordinary islander of the day. The upshot of the mini revolution was, among others, the removal by the Privy Council of the corrupt Attorney General, and the adoption of a code of laws.
Constitutional reform is not a feature of my election campaign, but there are 4 candidates in the senatorial election for whom it is their main issue.We made a mistake in not putting Clothier to a referendum , and simply letting the States cherry pick bits. In fact I would argue we should put constitutional changes to the people in a referendum on principle. It is about the only time a referendum should be used.
I am a big fan of local and decentralised systems for food and energy production. I want to apply that to government too. For us in Jersey that means the parish level and I warned those candidates concentrating on constitutional reform that anything that undermines the local and parish level would not be well received by the public.
I had previously made a couple of other observations about constitutional reform that I did not have time to do on the 28th. Various reasons are given by the different candidates for pressing for change. Some are more logical than others. I can see that reducing numbers would reduce costs (States members pay), However claiming that States reform , especially reducing numbers, would lead to improved quality and fewer questions and no 'unimportant back bench propositions' does not follow, either logically or politically.
It is not a given that more questions are a bad thing. That may reflect poor decision and policy making on the part of the Council of Ministers-so there is more to question., In part I think in recent years it also indicates a greater volume of work and increasingly complex legislation being brought forward.
There is an important question to be asked about the quality of States members, and the importance or otherwise of backbench propositions. Who decides what is quality, and what is important? In a representative democracy that is the decision for the electors to make. If they are unhappy with their representatives they lobby them, and if still dissatisfied with their quality or actions then reject them at election time. Those who want to change this mechanism need to specify who they would set up as judge and jury in place of the democratic decision of the people and explain exactly why that is better than democracy. They will find it very hard to convince me as, to paraphrase Churchill, democracy is the least worst of the systems we have tried.
Logically it follows that a reduced number of States members would likely result in a reduced range of opinion and political divergence in the Assembly. I happen to believe in diversity as an essential aspect of stable and resilient systems, be they ecological, economic or political. I find that argument for reducing numbers unconvincing. Moreover logically what you lose at the low quality however defined end, you also risk losing at the high quality, however defined end. There is simply no guarantee that changing numbers changes the quality of members or debate, even if that were desirable.
To my mind the key issues that give rise to many of the arguments for reform are caused by other aspects of our political system. First is the partisan way ministerial government has happened in the last 3 years. Our current chief minister has chosen to nominate his political friends and allies to ministerial post, rather than a broad cross-section of the political views in the assembly . In doing so he has also undermined the role of senator by leaving so many out of ministerial posts, The inevitable consequence is that those without ministerial or assistant ministerial posts are consigned to scrutiny or oblivion. Unsurprisingly therefore scrutiny has become a centre of opposition, rather than its proper role. So now that part of the apparatus does not function, and there is a dearth of a formal check and balance mechanism. At this point I invite you to review the item above about the number of questions in the assembly, and why that has happened, and whether it is a bad or a good thing.
The second reason is to do with the premise on which members are elected, and the low turn out in our elections. There are two things noticeably absent from our election system. They are that the electorate cannot vote for a fully formed, all embracing, costed and planned out programme of government. The other is that the mechanics do not allow debate and testing of the policy platform between candidates. We are limited to electing 51 individuals not one of whom can possibly have a fully enough detailed progamme on their own, and whose 'manifesto' cannot possibly be implemented in its entirety anyway. In short there is nothing for which we can hold the members, and the council of ministers in particular, to collective account. We are reduced to buying the sales and marketing brochure pitch with no trading standards equivalent right of redress when the service provided does not match up.
There are arguments for States reform, and voting reform too, based on equality of representation and proportionality of votes. Immediately it is obvious here the difficult point is the Connétables. With parishes varying in number of electors by a factor of 10 , proportionality is not achievable if they are the only parish representation. Yet as I have indicated I, and I think a lot of other people too, am very keen on the localised government represented by the parishes.
The obvious solution to my mind is to retain Connétables in the assembly, with a special responsibility for heading up scrutiny, but without a vote in the assembly. This retains a voice for parishes, especially those bigger ones that comprise multiple deputy districts, and retains the mechanism of the requete etc. It would be necessary to remove the policing functions to the Chefs de Police. In effect the Connétables would take on the responsibilities of a revising second house, albeit in the same chamber.
Without a vote the proportionality issue is much less troublesome and with a secure voice in the chamber for each parish, the way is freed up to have non parish bounded constituencies, or just one island wide constituency if that was desired. I have no strong view on this, though I note surveys have suggested people strongly favour the island wide mandate. Whichever way, if we have multi-member constituencies we must have some form of PR if we are to have any sort of representative chamber.
Worryingly that seems to put me rather close to the camp of the conservative forces.
St Martin Hustings
Last night's hustings was different for sure. We had barely sat in our places when the power failed. The honorary police got out some battery powered lamps and we proceeded. Of course the microphone and PA were not working, and since I had a very sore throat I found it hard going speaking clearly and loudly enough. Since I gave the speech that has a significant part about alternative energy and Samso, I was able to slip in a thank you to the JEC for their timely and dramatic demonstration of the importance of secure energy supplies.
The questions we good too. Starting with Mr Falle who wanted to know how we would diversity the economy and remove barriers to entrepreneurship. My response on diversification is to look at areas that leverage our existing investments in new area eg hosting MMORPG's that uses our good broadband and existing hosting skills. Doing recycling on island rather than shipping it. Aluminium looks a possibility - we don't do it because there is no local demand for aluminium so it has still to be shipped away. We don't have people doing light engineering in aluminium because it has to be brought in. Government needs to get both parties together to make the synergy happen. The other area, of course, is alternative power generation, particularly marine tidal and microgeneration systems.
On reducing barriers -the big one, deemed distribution that meant entrpreneurs had to pay tax on profits reinvested into the business is going in 16 months. The imbalance between 11k and local people buildning a new busieness is also a problem. Not allowing French traders invited to a French market to sell goods labelled in French is an example of the silly bureaucracy that ought to go.
Someone asked about supporting agriculture. Stuart Syvret answered well before I had a chance and hit the nail on the head about the strategic importance of agriculture in response to peak oil. Mr Le Gresley sesmt to think agriculture is in decline - parts are surely struggling but in fact overall it was almost the only the only part of the economy to show any sort of growth last year. Mr Bailhache thought it was all due to supermarket red tape. It isnt't in John Hamon's case as he does not sell to to supermarkets, but has still had his business hit badly. I had already covered it in part in my opening speech, bat as almost the last person to answer the question I had to point out it is not just land, you need to find a new generation of farmers, adnd you have to retain the knowledge and skills. Small, part time smallholders like me may be the only short term option while people like John Hamon are not able to make a living in farming.
We were asked about the future of the Esplanade quarter masterplan. Almost all were against. I had to point out that when this came up in the hustings three years ago and I thought it was a bad idea then. It is an insane one now. A sunken road will be at risk of flooding as sea level rises continue, and will need repair and lighting paid for. Also the 400 homes won't even cover the additional 450 households we have grown since the last election because of the States policy of deliberately increasing the population by 150 households per year.
The last question from Mr Stone asked about the low quality of the States and why was he was finding it hard to find 4 people on the platform to vote for. Predictably those candidates whose main plank for the election is constitutional reform took the opportunity to promote their projects. I answered differently. I see the main problem being the lack of a coherent wide ranging programme for government that people can vote for in the election as the problem. Of course individuals cannot cover it all. Secondary to that we cannot have effective debate between the candidates. For example, I disagree with Mr Bailhache when he states that backbenchers should not bring unimportant propositions. It is not for him , or me, to decide what is or is not important. It is for the electorate to decide that, and lobby their representatives to change their ways, or come election time vote them out. That is the the democratic way.
Student/youth husting
PRESS RELEASE
27th September 2011
The senator candidates in the election have arranged a special student/youth husting. This gives a chance for younger, and particularly first time, voters to hear the candidates and ask the questions that are important to the youth of the Island.
The meeting will be at Hautlieu School, Wednesday 5th October, starting 4:00 pm and finishing around 6:30 pm. It will be chaired by Ryan Morrison, presenter of BBC Jersey Introducing.
27th September 2011
The senator candidates in the election have arranged a special student/youth husting. This gives a chance for younger, and particularly first time, voters to hear the candidates and ask the questions that are important to the youth of the Island.
The meeting will be at Hautlieu School, Wednesday 5th October, starting 4:00 pm and finishing around 6:30 pm. It will be chaired by Ryan Morrison, presenter of BBC Jersey Introducing.
St Peter Husting
We were in the Community Centre at St Peter, which is a much bigger room than St Clement Parish Hall and echoes somewhat. The dais the candidates were on was very narrow and we had a couple of mishaps as candidates rose to give their address.
The content of the speeches went much as the St Clement hustings. I missed out a section of mine as the time seems to evaporate quickly. Mr Richardson did give a different speech. He is doing much as I did in 2008 and addressing different topics on different hustings. It is a hard job to do and credit to him for trying. Mr Cohen seems to be feeling the electoral writing on the wall. Rightly or wrongly Portelet is a millstone for him. His rabbit out of the hat giveaway is fully funded scheme for further/higher education. No mention of the costs of this or where the funds come from. For me this has shades of the late Mr Vibert and his free nursery places.
The first question was probably the one that represents the view of the broad spread of ordinary people in Jersey. We were asked what 3 measures we would take to help the squeezed people of Jersey. Most of the platform wanted to remove GST either totally, or on food. I pointed out there are short and long term approaches to that. My immediate actions would be 1/ remove GST on essentials - food fuel and possibly water. 2/ Change the utility tariffs, particularly scrap the standing/fixed charge element so that lower consumption pay no more per unit that big consumers. 3/ encourage people to use local services and businesses because that money circulates in the local economy and helps everyone, unlike the money that leaks out of he island.
A lady asked about the destructive and impolite behaviour of some States members and consensus in decision making. I had to point out I've been on the minority side of politics here and elsewhere I have lived. Consensus is something to work at, but you need dissidents and mavericks, else you do not get progress but stagnation. Also if you do not have some people in there prepared to challenge and stand their ground resolutely. If you were the victim of injustice or discrimination and wanted to take the issue to the States, you would want people like that, not a house full of wet blankets.
We were asked what 2 things we would do to get more young people involved in politics. Senator Le Gresley I think it was claimed the proposed student/youth hustings! I had to take issue with the premise of the question a bit - my experience in young people are very interested in issues .As an example at Regstock the Amnesty stall was run by students from Hautlieu and other schools. What we have not done is engaged in the issues and related that to the political mechanics.We have to meet then on their ground at least sometimes.The other aspect is the lack of mixing of age groups we have a very stratified society and we would find it much easier to engage, both ways, if we mixed more in other aspects of life.
Someone suggested that we need more economic stimulus and more capital project spend and wanted to know how we would pay for it - spend reserves, take on debt, use PFI. In my view we are facing huge problems economically, and environmentally and spending the reserves now is not the right time. The important thing is to pick the right capital project, not least because when you do capital spending your are committing to recurring maintenance spend. Project that reduce outgoing because of efficiency , such as insulation are fine. Projects that reduce our C02 emissions are also good candidates.
Interestingly Mr Gorst made the point we have not spent enough on infrastructure in recent times and it is not crumbling. He is right we have not spent on maintenance adequately -we wrongly spent on prestige new projects instead. But he's a minister , been in the States a while, often speaks up for budget restraint and balancing budgets. So where were his amendment proposal to the budget to address this ongoing underspend? He wants to be Chief Minister.
The content of the speeches went much as the St Clement hustings. I missed out a section of mine as the time seems to evaporate quickly. Mr Richardson did give a different speech. He is doing much as I did in 2008 and addressing different topics on different hustings. It is a hard job to do and credit to him for trying. Mr Cohen seems to be feeling the electoral writing on the wall. Rightly or wrongly Portelet is a millstone for him. His rabbit out of the hat giveaway is fully funded scheme for further/higher education. No mention of the costs of this or where the funds come from. For me this has shades of the late Mr Vibert and his free nursery places.
The first question was probably the one that represents the view of the broad spread of ordinary people in Jersey. We were asked what 3 measures we would take to help the squeezed people of Jersey. Most of the platform wanted to remove GST either totally, or on food. I pointed out there are short and long term approaches to that. My immediate actions would be 1/ remove GST on essentials - food fuel and possibly water. 2/ Change the utility tariffs, particularly scrap the standing/fixed charge element so that lower consumption pay no more per unit that big consumers. 3/ encourage people to use local services and businesses because that money circulates in the local economy and helps everyone, unlike the money that leaks out of he island.
A lady asked about the destructive and impolite behaviour of some States members and consensus in decision making. I had to point out I've been on the minority side of politics here and elsewhere I have lived. Consensus is something to work at, but you need dissidents and mavericks, else you do not get progress but stagnation. Also if you do not have some people in there prepared to challenge and stand their ground resolutely. If you were the victim of injustice or discrimination and wanted to take the issue to the States, you would want people like that, not a house full of wet blankets.
We were asked what 2 things we would do to get more young people involved in politics. Senator Le Gresley I think it was claimed the proposed student/youth hustings! I had to take issue with the premise of the question a bit - my experience in young people are very interested in issues .As an example at Regstock the Amnesty stall was run by students from Hautlieu and other schools. What we have not done is engaged in the issues and related that to the political mechanics.We have to meet then on their ground at least sometimes.The other aspect is the lack of mixing of age groups we have a very stratified society and we would find it much easier to engage, both ways, if we mixed more in other aspects of life.
Someone suggested that we need more economic stimulus and more capital project spend and wanted to know how we would pay for it - spend reserves, take on debt, use PFI. In my view we are facing huge problems economically, and environmentally and spending the reserves now is not the right time. The important thing is to pick the right capital project, not least because when you do capital spending your are committing to recurring maintenance spend. Project that reduce outgoing because of efficiency , such as insulation are fine. Projects that reduce our C02 emissions are also good candidates.
Interestingly Mr Gorst made the point we have not spent enough on infrastructure in recent times and it is not crumbling. He is right we have not spent on maintenance adequately -we wrongly spent on prestige new projects instead. But he's a minister , been in the States a while, often speaks up for budget restraint and balancing budgets. So where were his amendment proposal to the budget to address this ongoing underspend? He wants to be Chief Minister.
St Clement Hustings
It felt like a bit of a cold start all round for the St Clement hustings. Sen Cohen didn't get any applause at the end of his 4 min speech. The constable rather pointedly ignored one of his constituents who wanted to ask a question all evening. I was last to speak - not a position in which one can make much impact , especially when you are half masked by a drape.
Some things have become clear. Rose Colley is far closer to Mr Bailhache and co than I had hoped or expected. Linda Corby struggled a bit keeping focus, but her instincts seem good. However the biggest howler to my mind was made by Mr Bailhache in his 4 minutes , there he decried States members who bring propositions of no importance. It is not his position to determine what is or is not important. That is for the representatives to decide, and ultimately their electors through the ballot box. But the press won't pick that up because he speaks with a nice educated voice and it sounds reasonable at the time. That won't happen unless we have reporting that applies political analysis to the content of what is said rather than trite pieces on the superficialities of candidates' personalities.
We had a question on Radon, which most candidates talked about granite houses, rather then the geology. Few had anything to offer other than following the new building bye laws. I think I was alone in callimg for monitoring in public buildings, like schools and hospitals.
There was a question about whether candidates would help constituents redress injustice, a pointed comment re Mr Gorst. All said yes of course, but it was for Stuart Syvret and myself to point out that it had not happened over 40 years regarding child abuse, so what had all those politicians been doing?
There was a question about whether candidates thought referenda should be binding , and should we have one re 1.1.k taxation. I understand the problems of making referenda binding, and the possibility of getting inconsistent policy that way, but in a democracy the will of the people has to mean something.If it is to be binding the bar must be high, at least 65%
The best question of the evening in many ways was whether the candidates believed in equality of opportunity for youths and what would they do about it. Most candidates dived straight into education of course. I was last and was alone in pointing out you need diversity in the economy to give broader opportunity too. If you have children in cold damp flats who get ill often and so miss school it matters not how good the teaching they are not getting equality of opportunity. Similarly, children who arrive at school hungry cannot focus or concentrate on lessons no matter how bright. We need to tackle these social issues if we are to come anywhere near equality of opportunity.
Some people still seem to be under the illusion that the media have a duty to be fair and impartial in their reporting. That applies in part to the television, and specifically to the BBC under its charter, but for commercial newspapers like the JEP that is not the case. Two small examples today will show you the sort of accidental things that occur with a tedious regularity. The BBC radio today had a problem with the phones, and the usual number to call in to ask candidates questions was not working. Pure coincidence that it was the day Mr Bailhache was on and thereby ordinary callers could not put their awkward questions to him. The other is a large spread in the JEP on social media and elections by Ben Queree. There is a box with a list of the election candidates who are on twitter, but strangely omits one candidate who is active on twitter, and even followed by Ben. Yes you've guessed, it is one of the overtly non-establishement candidates.
If last time is anything to go by, expect a rather curtailed report of the hustings, and the more interesting questions to be omitted altogether.
Tomorrow night St Peter.
Video of three of the candidates giving their initial speeches, including me, can be seen at Tom Gruchy
Some things have become clear. Rose Colley is far closer to Mr Bailhache and co than I had hoped or expected. Linda Corby struggled a bit keeping focus, but her instincts seem good. However the biggest howler to my mind was made by Mr Bailhache in his 4 minutes , there he decried States members who bring propositions of no importance. It is not his position to determine what is or is not important. That is for the representatives to decide, and ultimately their electors through the ballot box. But the press won't pick that up because he speaks with a nice educated voice and it sounds reasonable at the time. That won't happen unless we have reporting that applies political analysis to the content of what is said rather than trite pieces on the superficialities of candidates' personalities.
We had a question on Radon, which most candidates talked about granite houses, rather then the geology. Few had anything to offer other than following the new building bye laws. I think I was alone in callimg for monitoring in public buildings, like schools and hospitals.
There was a question about whether candidates would help constituents redress injustice, a pointed comment re Mr Gorst. All said yes of course, but it was for Stuart Syvret and myself to point out that it had not happened over 40 years regarding child abuse, so what had all those politicians been doing?
There was a question about whether candidates thought referenda should be binding , and should we have one re 1.1.k taxation. I understand the problems of making referenda binding, and the possibility of getting inconsistent policy that way, but in a democracy the will of the people has to mean something.If it is to be binding the bar must be high, at least 65%
The best question of the evening in many ways was whether the candidates believed in equality of opportunity for youths and what would they do about it. Most candidates dived straight into education of course. I was last and was alone in pointing out you need diversity in the economy to give broader opportunity too. If you have children in cold damp flats who get ill often and so miss school it matters not how good the teaching they are not getting equality of opportunity. Similarly, children who arrive at school hungry cannot focus or concentrate on lessons no matter how bright. We need to tackle these social issues if we are to come anywhere near equality of opportunity.
Some people still seem to be under the illusion that the media have a duty to be fair and impartial in their reporting. That applies in part to the television, and specifically to the BBC under its charter, but for commercial newspapers like the JEP that is not the case. Two small examples today will show you the sort of accidental things that occur with a tedious regularity. The BBC radio today had a problem with the phones, and the usual number to call in to ask candidates questions was not working. Pure coincidence that it was the day Mr Bailhache was on and thereby ordinary callers could not put their awkward questions to him. The other is a large spread in the JEP on social media and elections by Ben Queree. There is a box with a list of the election candidates who are on twitter, but strangely omits one candidate who is active on twitter, and even followed by Ben. Yes you've guessed, it is one of the overtly non-establishement candidates.
If last time is anything to go by, expect a rather curtailed report of the hustings, and the more interesting questions to be omitted altogether.
Tomorrow night St Peter.
Video of three of the candidates giving their initial speeches, including me, can be seen at Tom Gruchy
Student/youth hustings
I have had to do a lot of chasing and getting somewhat pushy to progress the possibility of a youth /student hustings. It is now looking a lot more likely, with a potential date and venue lined up. I'll post more once I have confirmed some more details and costs with the other interested senatorial candidates.
It does strike me as rather contradictory that the National Trust, Société and RJAHS can have a joint hustings ready and on the candidates meeting agenda alongside the usual parish hustings, but no-one takes the initiative at the Education Department to get a student hustings similarly lined up. Far be it for me to comment on reasons for this, but it has been suggested to me that one of these group is likely to be rather more supportive of the political status quo than the other.
It does strike me as rather contradictory that the National Trust, Société and RJAHS can have a joint hustings ready and on the candidates meeting agenda alongside the usual parish hustings, but no-one takes the initiative at the Education Department to get a student hustings similarly lined up. Far be it for me to comment on reasons for this, but it has been suggested to me that one of these group is likely to be rather more supportive of the political status quo than the other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
