JERSEY ELECTION SPECIAL, #3

A FEW EXAMPLES OF MENDACITY.

Your Choice:

Do You Want To Be Governed

By Fakes?

I said in my last Election Special, we’d begin the process of whittling down the 21 candidates to eventually arrive at those who may merit voting for.

So, to begin that process, I thought we’d take a close look at some of the black arts of propaganda and spin – and consider what some of the sitting members assert – compared with the brutal truth of their political voting record. An exercise from which one may draw the obvious conclusions.

Since this election campaign got underway, I’ve been making something of a study of the manifestos, advertisements, web-sites and slogans of the 21 candidates.

Who said politics wasn’t fun?

Some people perceive me as a miserable bastard, to which I say, ‘look, if you had to do what I have to do – you’d feel a little glum from time to time’.

But existential bleakness can be funny. In many ways, Samuel Becket was a comedian. Humour can be found in the most unlikely of grim circumstances – even Jersey elections.

And so it has been whilst examining the assertions of most of the sitting States members – in contrast with the facts.

It’s been as funny as reading Private Eye, listening to Chris Rock and trying to follow George Bush’s syntax all rolled-up into one.

Some of the claims made by the establishment candidates are so nakedly brazen in their defiance of the truth, one can only stare in wonder and shake your head in disbelief at the sheer nerve and shamelessness of many of the lies.

I’ve been in politics for 18 years – a profession noted for the ability of its practitioners to assert that black is white – but even if I wanted to lie in politics – I simply wouldn’t have the utter brass-neck some of these people display.

I mean, to take just one example, if I had a track-record of rabid, pro-active destruction of the environment – as has Philip Ozouf – I simply wouldn’t have the gall to assert, as he does, “I have put environmental concerns at the heart of corporate plans”.

No you haven’t, Philip. You’ve crushed environmental concerns under the heel of your rabid, market-fundamentalism – throughout your career. A little bit of Greenwash in the form of an “EcoActive” scheme is about as convincing as a North-Korean media report.

I’ve actually had tears of laughter rolling down my cheeks at many of the fantastical claims made by the oligarchy candidates.

Check out this gem from Philip’s web site:

“GREEN FIELDS – I do not wish to see any further development in green field sites for the foreseeable future. Studies are now showing that there are plenty of opportunities to increase housing supply through regenerating St. Helier.”

You can tell Philip has – just as has his running-mate, Alan MacLean – made a study of infamous propaganda techniques. Note the carefully crafted “get out of jail free” clauses in the above quote. Any “FURTHER” development of green field sites.

So that’s no “further” development – on top of the vast quantity of environmentally destructive countryside development you have supported so far.

Then we come to the wonderful phrase “for the foreseeable future”. What is the “foreseeable” future? Would that be until your pall Freddy comes to the States next with another vast chunk of wholly inappropriate re-zonings for development?

But of course – the truly comical phrase of Philip’s is “I do not “WISH” to see any further developments”.

So that’s OK, then – Philip doesn’t WISH to see any further developments – but when the proposals are brought forward, with heavy-heart and reluctant hand he’ll support further developments – even though he doesn’t WISH to.

Interpreting political statements is often akin to translating from one language to another. Which is what we’ve done with Philip Ozouf’s environmental claim.

What does it actually mean? At first glance, it presses all the right buttons – green fields – to be protected from development.

But in truth – all that we are being presented with is a text-book example of the political emergency exit. Lots of nice, clear avenues of escape – just as soon as the candidate feels like it. For in truth, what is being said is this:

“I need a bit of Green tokenism in my manifesto – but I don’t want to draw attention to my PAST record of environmental destruction – and nor do I want to be bound by a manifesto pledge when I carry on supporting even more developments. So let’s phrase something with a few weasel-words – which can be ducked out of should I ever be questioned about it.”

See – easy, isn’t it? Translating political double-speak into English?

Philip’s protégé, Alan MacLean adopts the self-same tactic in his propaganda. For example, just check-out his ads which are running in The Rag. There are eight bullet-points in his advertisement – one of which says this:

“Countryside and Heritage Protection”.

Again – that’s the “Green” button pressed. But what – prey – does the phrase actually mean?

It means nothing.

What we learn from this little bit of analysis is simple, and can be summarised thus:

“Always judge politicians by what they DO – NOT what they say.”

So let us compare and contrasts the environmental weasel-words of Philip Ozouf & Alan MacLean – with the inconvenient truth of their voting record, by way of two simple examples.

On the 2nd April, the States rejected a proposition that was attempting to halt the piece-meal development of the countryside, and instead sought that the review of the Island Plan be completed before any major re-zoning decisions. An environmentally sound proposition.

Now – dear readers – can we guess which way Alan & Philip voted on this occasion?

It isn’t difficult is it?

Both men were implacable in their opposition to the proposal.

Following the defeat of this proposition, the States, on the 16th July, voted on a proposition of Freddy – Mr Environment – Cohen – to re-zone huge chunks of the supposedly protected countryside in an entirely disjointed, nonsensical fashion – rather than wait until the Island Plan review is complete so that we have a cohesive, overall policy for development decisions.

Which way do we think out two “environmental champions” voted?

Yep – got it in one.

Both men supported this latest round of environmental destruction.

Yet here they are – at election time – quite brazenly seeking to cloak themselves in a bit of Green spin.

As I said, the sheer nerve of some of the spin and propaganda is truly breath-taking.

Let’s take a look at another example of just how – err – “reliable” Alan MacLean is.

When I was running for election in 2005, I pledged that I would continue to fight for essentials to be exempted from the Goods & Services Tax. And you know what – Alan MacLean, whilst not going as far as me, made a similar election pledge to the voting public of St. Helier number 2 district.

This is what he said – in writing – in his manifesto:

“GST – We must ensure the less well of are protected. They are the most affected from this new tax and we must ensure that the proposed low-income support scheme provides the desired protection. Medicines and medical services should be exempt as well as children’s clothing. We must ensure that the 3% rate is maintained as a maximum.”

OK – again, as an assertion, it presses all the right buttons. Protect less well-off, effective Income Support scheme, maintain a 3% rate – but also exempt medicines and medical services, and children’s clothing from the tax.

In due course, I carried out my election pledge – and fought a major battle in the assembly in an attempt to get some key items, such as food, domestic energy, education costs – and medical supplies and services – and children’s clothes – exempted from the tax.

You know what’s coming – don’t you?

How did Alan – vote-for-me-for-GST-exemptions – MacLean vote in that debate?

Not only did he flatly vote against every one of the proposed exemptions – he actually made a rabid speech in opposition to them.

So get this straight – here’s a man who made an unambiguous – written – pledge to his voters – the predominantly poor, working class district of St. Helier number 2 -that he would support the exemption of medical costs and children’s clothing from GST.

Yet, a matter of only months later – not only did he fail to keep his word – he actually made a lengthy speech in complete opposition to that which he had pledged to do.

Are you a mug?

Do you want to be represented by people who have such contempt for members of the public, that they’d so brazenly dissemble in their election promises – knowing full-well that if elected, they’ll just do what ever the hell they feel like?

Personally – even if I was in complete disagreement with the views of a candidate – I could at least respect them if they were honest about their political policies.

What I can’t respect – are charlatans.

But why do we carry on doing this? Getting hoodwinked at every single election?

By happy coincidence, this week’s New Scientist magazine has an article, on page 9, titled, “Our psychology helps politicians bend the truth.”

In essence, what is explained is that psychologically, we tend to arrange the world into categories – which saves ‘thinking-time’ – and we then go on to make all kinds of assumptions and extrapolations – based on the ingrained categories we have fixed in our minds.

Therefore, if politician X has, over a period of time, cultivated an “image” of themselves and what they stand for – a lot of people just won’t really absorb the fact that politician X, generally actually votes for the opposite of what we assume them to stand for.

To take a pertinent example – Sarah Ferguson has gone into this election touting herself as “Mrs Efficiency” – a politician who will hold the public sector to “account” – and bring some robust “common sense” to the task. As she has been Chair of the Public Accounts Committee – a body which is supposed to be a financial watch-dog, safeguarding us against poor performance and ensuring the public sector faces “accountability” – many of us will assume that image to be true.

But – what is the reality?

Two, highly relevant, examples spring to mind.

On the 9th September, I took a proposition to the assembly which sought to establish a Committee of Enquiry into the utterly irresponsible – and illegal – dumping of 100’000’s of tonnes of toxic incinerator ash into the land reclamation sites.

St. Helier’s Waterfront being, essentially, a giant toxic waste dump. A state of affairs which was repeatedly covered-up and denied by the relevant States departments in an example of the worst kind of civil service inefficiency and unaccountability.

Although difficult to conceive of a worse example of gross incompetence, irresponsibility and poor performance by the civil service – Sarah Ferguson voted against even enquiring into the disaster.

How does that reality square with her professed and supposed political determination to demand value for money and effectiveness from the public sector?

Consider the second example; on September the 11th of 2007, Sarah voted in favour of a proposition to have me dismissed as Minister for Health & Social Services – even though it was plain on the available evidence that the move to have me dismissed had been engineered by a number of manifestly incompetent, dishonest and dangerous – and very expensive – senior civil servants.

The prime motivation of whom was to get rid of me in order that they be able to hide the fact that so incompetent, lazy and unethical had they been – they’d been running for years a child custody system which was illegal and abusive. A fact which had been explained to me by the whistle-blower, Simon Bellwood – who I believed – instead of believing my plainly lying civil servants.

Fast-foreword to 11th October 2008. In an illustration of just how right me and Bellwood were – and how disastrously wrong the civil servants – and those like Sarah Ferguson, who passively supported them were – today, even The Rag says this:

“Grand Prix system was abusive and illegal”. It goes on to say, “Locking children up in solitary confinement…..was abusive and illegal a damning report will reveal.”

Decades of toxic ash dumping – decades of criminal, institutional child abuse. Both examples of the grossest malfeasance by the incompetent, bloated, over-paid and under worked upper-ranks of Jersey’s senior civil service.

But both perfectly OK as far as Sarah – “accountability” – Ferguson is concerned.

I’ve focused on Philip Ozouf, Alan MacLean and Sarah Ferguson in these comments, but the same observations could be made of nearly all the sitting States members who are contesting this election.

My recommendation to voters is that amongst the current States members contesting this Senatorial election there are only two who merit voting for. They being Alan Breckon & Geoff Southern.

You may not agree with their views – you may not like them. But they carry the immensely important distinction of being reliable and honest. With these two, politically – what you see is what you get.

Personally, I will, most certainly, be voting for Alan Breckon. And I’ll have to think closely as to whether Geoff Southern gets a vote. I don’t, frankly, get on with him at a personal level, but a part of being a responsible politician is setting aside personal considerations in order to do what you consider to be for the best.

For similar reason’s I’d like to place Nick Le Cornu at the very bottom of the list –but in reality – Mike Vibert must be in last place.

But as I said in my last posting, this is a strong field – I could easily vote for 10of the candidates. But I have to whittle down my choice to the 6 votes I’ll cast.

I have thought hard about how to present my recommendations. In the end I’ve decided on a simple approach. I will rank the 21 in order of preference.

Perhaps with a few, very short observations on each candidate.

And I’ll do that in Monday’s posting.

But in the interim, tomorrow evening we’ll be taking a close look at a few of the new candidates – and considering what they have to offer.

Or not.

As the case is with some of them.

Watch this space.

Stuart.

The man who laughs in the face of defamation actions.

29 thoughts on “JERSEY ELECTION SPECIAL, #3

  1. Anonymous

    THERE IS A FULL PAGE COLOUR AD IN THE RAG TODAY – STUART HOW MUCH DID THAT COST US?

    WOULD YOU AGREE THAT POLITICIANS HAVE MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES TO DISCUSS THAT CET? THE RIGHTS OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION CHILDREN FOR A START.

    HOW MUCH IN TOTAL IS THIS FOLLY COSTING?

    JIMMY PERCHARD LIKES CRICKET SO HE DONATES A PITCH, NOW HE WANTS TO CONTROL THE DAYLIGHT HOURS. QUELLE SURPRISE!

    ANY SANE PERSON WOULD APPRECIATE THAT THE FINANCE INDUSTRY WOULD VETO A YES RESULT!

    IF POLITICIANS WANT TO ENGAGE THE PUBLIC A REFERENDUM ON A GENERAL ELECTION DAY – YES OR NO, WOULD HAVE BEEN MONEY BETTER SPENT.

    THIS REFERENDUM IS A MERELY RICH MANS FOLLY – I PREDICT A POOR TURN OUT (HOPE I AM PROVED WRONG) SO HOW DEMOCRATIC WOULD ANY RESULT BE?

    I WON’T VOTE FOR ANY OF HIS CRONIES THAT ARE STANDING FOR ELECTION – I AM VOTING FOR SOUTHERN, BRECON, DEFINATELY FOUR OTHERS ARE UNDECIDED BUT MY X WON’T GO TO ANY OTHER STANDING POLITICIAN, THAT IS OT ASA RESULT OF YOUR POST – I ACUALLY FOLLOW WHAT GOES ON IN THE STATES!

    Reply
  2. Sarah K

    Stuart, you are preaching to the converted. I very much doubt that nay of your readership will vote for a current States sitting candidate. We need a way of getting this message across to anyone who does not read this blog. We have three days left until elections. We have to tell anyone who will listen not to vote for ozouf and his cronies. NOW.

    Reply
  3. Anonymous

    you are a tease – I am referring to your last sentence. C’mon spill the beans. U know you want to.

    Reply
  4. Nick Palmer

    Stuart, if you’re assessing myself, Daniel W or Mark Forskitt using the soundbite profiles in tonight’s JEP on p16-17 please consider this email I sent the Post about it…

    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I enclose a copy of a post I made today on one of the Island’s online fora. I think whoever boiled our views down into soundbites went a bit too far.

    “In today’s J.E.P. they have, on pages 16-17, “Who stands for what”. This purports to give a guide to “Senatorial platforms and promises”.

    Unfortunately, they give the reader a very wrong impression of my position by reporting that I “wants (sic) capital gains tax on residential property”. This is incorrect. I have said, in answer to questions about replacing GST with something else, that one option would be to tax property SPECULATION i.e. the buying and rapid selling or the development of, then early selling of, property primarily to make money. Any capital gains tax would be tapered off completely over, say, 10-20 years, in order not to penalise people who actually live in their property. The taper would fall off rapidly so that the earlier one sold one’s property for non emergency or social reasons, the more tax would be paid.”

    I think you must agree that your 7 word précis is misleading – could you correct this please?

    Nick Palmer

    On the side of the Planet – and the people – because they’re worth it

    Reply
  5. Anonymous

    on planet jersey sarah ferguson appears to have the notion that if the new incinerator would be painted a lurid colour that would be ok for the island. Nice vision i think……not

    Reply
  6. Anonymous

    Stuart,

    There are 7 sitting states members and 14 newcomers standing for Senator i.e. a ratio of 1:2.

    Mathematically (and hence irrefutably) this means that if the electorate, on average, vote for 2 randomly selected sitting members and 4 randomly selected newcomers i.e a ratio of 1:2 then the final outcome will be that 3 sitting members and 3 newcomers will be successful.

    Whilst I do agree that Breckon and Southern are the only 2 sitting states members worth considering, the mathematics of the situation dictate that if voters truly want new faces in the states then they must use all 6 votes on newcomers.

    It is for this reason, and this reason alone, that I will not be voting for Breckon and Southern. I am also hoping that both of these men will be returned as Deputies.

    IF VOTERS WANT CHANGE THEN THEY MUST VOTE FOR CHANGE WHICH MEANS
    USING ALL 6 VOTES FOR NEWCOMERS.

    Phil

    Reply
  7. Anonymous

    Nellie Macon threatened by Glen Rankine.

    WHO will have the balls to report it?

    JEP?
    BBC?
    103?

    Or do we have to resort to national media again.

    It’s a great story Mother of candidate threatened by spin doctor of two other millionaire candidates.

    i notice that Planet Jersey have not mentioned it -WHY?
    Are they still in Ozouf’s pocket too?

    Reply
  8. Anonymous

    My biggest concern is not that the present sitting politicians (except Breckon and Southern)will get voted back in in the Senatorials but that they will (when defeated) stand in the Deputy elections and get back in with say 600 votes.

    Then the likes of Ozouf Vibert Routier Maclean and Ferguson will demand Senatorial positions/senior positions in the new Assembly because of their experience ahead of new members.

    So the Deputy Elections are likely to be more important than the Senatorial. We have seen over the last 3 years what a mess a Deputy (Du Faye) does when they get a Ministers spot.

    I hope Stuart you will be more vocal (outside this Blog) to help stop what unfortunately looks inevitable in the Deputy Elections

    Bring on General Election reform where this loophole is closed.

    I know the St Clement Connetable candidates where asked if they would stand as Deputy if they didn’t succeed as Senator; 2 said no and the other (your “friend!!!” Baudains) said he would listen to the continuency – what a cop out!!!
    I hope the Senators are asked at a hustings!!

    Reply
  9. Anonymous

    I suggest people get on jersey centrel and get your veiws accross!! freedom of speach comes into mind

    Reply
  10. Stuart Syvret

    Nick

    Yes – I’ll be commenting on you guys.

    And – yes, I’ll do what I can to correct the lies of The Rag – of which we can expect a lot more in the next few days.

    I and some friends play an occasional game called, “write the JEP leader comment”, the objective of which is to most closely predict what The Rag will say on a given topic.

    On this occasion, it will very much be stuff along the lines of “troubled times blah blah……need for stability blah blah blah……….experience required blah blah blah blah……no time to be taking risks on untested candidates blah-de-blah-de-blah…….rest of candidates good guys blah – be blah – be blah – blah……but oligarchy candidates will be the safe pairs of hands we need at this difficult moment…yawn, yawn, yawn.”

    What they won’t, of course, point out is that many, many of the profound difficulties we face are precisely because of the policies and approach of the oligarchy.

    They – and people like them – got us into this mess.

    For sure – many of them are “experienced” – but experienced at cocking things up.

    But – yes – steel yourselves for an onslaught of the kind I predict above.

    Stuart

    Reply
  11. Stuart Syvret

    Mathematics of Voting

    I understand what you’re saying – but I don’t agree with some of the assumptions you make.

    For example, your calculation is predicated upon voters choosing random candidates. I actually think there will be tendencies and trends in voting – I don’t think it will be quite so “random”.

    I also suspect that some voters will not fee comfortable in voting for none of the sitting members; they’ll want some experience.

    This is why I’m voting for Alan Breckon, and maybe Geoff Southern.

    My remaining four votes will all go to new-comers.

    Stuart

    Reply
  12. Stuart Syvret

    Rejected oligarchy candidates running as Deputy.

    Let us hope the oligarchy candidates – sitting members as well as their newcomers – all get rejected.

    Vibert doesn’t have a prayer of getting re-elected anywhere. In fact it would be quite entertaining watching him endure the humiliation of a second rejection.

    MacLean? He – like other oligarchy candidates, carries with himself an air of great presumption. A progression to Senator is merely seen as an inevitable ‘given’ on his career arc. Would he take the humiliation of going back to his Deputy district – and trying to explain to voters why he lied to them in his manifesto last time around?

    I doubt it.

    Ozouf? In the strong likelihood of him being thrown out of the Senatorial benches – could his vast ego tolerate going back to a district following such a humiliation? He might – only if his determination to concrete over Jersey is sufficient to overcome his fear of facing a second defeat.

    In general – given events and the public mood – I just can’t see any parish or district being happy to return any of the three sitting Senators if they’ve been rejected by the island.

    But sitting members or newcomers – if they’re oligarchy candidates – I feel the forthcoming Deputies elections are going to be a lot less kind to them than they’ve been in the past.

    Stuart

    Reply
  13. TonyTheProf

    One might add the “no new taxes” boast of Ozouf and Maclean as an example of spin – how to make GST an asset, it’s here now so we can say “no NEW taxes”, rather than commenting on any exemptions!

    Reply
  14. Anonymous

    May I suggest you draw up your list in reverse order with the most loathed/useless first, decending to the decent ones last. I like to do this and have been spreading this method to others as a way to encourage those not interested to vote. Many seem to like this reverse psychology as it gives them a reason to get out there and vote.

    Anyone one who voted against the islanders wishes on taxes have to go in my view so:-
    On my list Phil has to come top as I see him as a shrewd opperator who will stop at nothing to get the top job. I see him as a mini-me Walker just waiting to slip into that vacant chair once Mr.Le Sueur has warmed it up for him.

    Mike Vibert on the other hand is not very bright in my opinion so he doesn’t pose as great a threat to ordinary islanders well being. He however is probably second on my list because of the child abuse and what I have read about it.

    The rest of the GST lot are pretty much on a par I’d say but maybe Sarah Ferguson in my opinion just edges 3rd place in my list due to her involvement in seeing the AG.

    Routier in my opinion is not pro-people he has done little or nothing to help them so he is next on my list.

    Alan MacLean in my opinion is also high up as he is Phil’s follower so he comes in 5th. He doesn’t have much substance and doesn’t do what he says in his election manifesto’s.

    6th Peter Troy.

    All of the above tend to view the island through rose tinted glasses and appear unaware or not really interested in the state of Joe Public.

    7th Ian Le Marquand. I worry what he will do once installed as the home minister. I feel he is too closely allied to the establishment to be free thinking.

    Of the rest the ones who really should get a vote in my view are Geoff Southern because like him or loathe him he is a battler who tries to make a difference and I think you judge him a bit harshly Stuart. Also Alan Breckon for the same reasons. These are my to top ones most respected, do what they say etc. I do hope Stuart you give Geoff a vote he deserves support from us ordinary people.

    Of the rest I have been surprised by Jeremy Macon. He has come across very well for a youngster.

    Nick Palmer talks a lot of sense as does Mark Forskitt.

    I’m undersided between Daniel Wimberley, Montfort Tadier, Chris Perkins and Mike Higgins.

    Anyway it would be good to get feedback from others about this!

    I think I will go to the town hall tomorrow and see if Mrs.Macon gives Glenn Rankin a good handbagging should be fun all round! I don’t think he has done any favours for Phil and Al’s election chances which is great by me!

    These are my own opinions and others are free to disagree with what I have said. I want a decent island to live in that doesn’t pander to big business, finance or the rich. These groups have far too much of a say and are big enough and ugly enough to look after themselves. However the underpriveledged, poor, ill, etc are not and I believe it is up to the government to look after these groups and not the big boys. Capitalism does not work, lets get back to basics and get a caring, sharing society not a fcuk you society which we have now.

    Reply
  15. Anonymous

    I think anyone who intends voting for Geoff Southern MUST also vote for Trevor Pitman.

    As both JDA members you know that they will vote the same way every time so by voting for Trevor Pitman you are effectively giving 2 votes to Geoff Southern (JDA). (I also think Alan Breckon is a closet JDA member (check his voting pattern compared to JDA members)but because he has been an “Independant” all his political career he doesn’t want to change now); so vote for all 3.

    This would also apply in the Deputy Elections – for every JDA member you give a vote to you increase their power in the States.

    As Stuart says you may not be a fan of the personalities in JDA but you know they will vote for what their manifesto says. The way to beat the “Establishment Party” it is vote for group of people whose policies will be against the Ollies rather than voting for Personalities.

    So thats 3 of my votes.

    I want to vote for an environmentalist but I think by having a choice of 3 (Palmer, Wimberley Forskitt) the environmental vote will be split amongst them and (I hope I’m wrong) by having 3 very similar candidates the enviromental vote will be split between them and neither will get sufficient votes to make it. Its a shame they could not have formed an alliance with one standing. I feel then an environmentalist would have been successful in the Senatorials.

    I too have been impressed by the Macon Family (I see it as voting for both Jeremy and Nellie) and just to spite Rankine wouldn’t it be great if we had Nellie/Jeremy as a Minister!!! Handbags and all!!

    So I’ve got 5 so far.

    Maybe I should give the other one to Pip and force him to be a Minister with Geoff Southern and Nellie/Jeremy Macon. Now that would make Ministerial meetings entertaining!!

    And just for added entertainment lets make Nellie/Jeremy Chief Minister so when Pip steps out of line he gets a good handbagging (But then maybe he’d enjoy that? lol)

    Reply
  16. Anonymous

    I am voting for Jeremy Macon, Alan Breckon, Geoff Southern and Montfort Tadier for certain.
    The Greens may have good ideas but their vote will be split, so no.
    Nick Le Cornu another no.Too smarmy.

    So I have two votes left and await your recommendations Stuart

    Reply
  17. To Zero

    There’s a big push to get rid of the far right or whatever it’s called. The fear is that we mess it up by splitting our vote too thinly amongst the remaining candidates.

    So my tactic is going to be to put a lot of store by what you recommend in the hope that others will do the same.

    So to try to influence your top 6 here’s few of my prejudices.

    Absolute no-no’s (outside the oligarchy) – Macon and Le Clerq. Let those vote for them who at 21 want(ed) their mother to be fighting their battles, or who don’t mind people making up qualifications and regurgitating new age self help books.

    Choose one green – and I’d go for Mark. The others can go for deputy, which would be more in tune with their “local” philosophy.

    Monty is the youth coming through. He’ll bring integrity and compassion.

    Mike Higgins did get it right regarding bank guarantees, and could have saved Jersey a considerable amount of pain. He will be able to facilitate the new economy Jersey will have to build. (Ozouf of course got it completely wrong.)

    Nick Le Cornu will I think be a good States member, but I doubt he’ll get into your top 6.

    Alan Breckon has been a good deputy, and is socially fair.

    All the best.

    Reply
  18. Nick Palmer

    “I want to vote for an environmentalist but I think by having a choice of 3 (Palmer, Wimberley Forskitt) the environmental vote will be split amongst them”

    Maybe, but if you check out our various manifestos you will see that we are not “just” environmentalists – because we are familiar with sustainable, new or ecological economics we are all pretty hot on social justice, economic sustainability and the tax reforms that will enable it. Hence, you get anti GST etc plus looking after those who struggle, like some of the old and the ordinary people, and you get to look after our only planetary home as a happy side effect. What’s not to love? Should be a green landslide!

    Reply
  19. Anonymous

    “I’m voting for;
    Montfort Tadier and Nick le Cornu. They took a stand and protested in the royal square. Something that most of our elected “representitives” will not do.
    Southern and Pitman. Geoff has been grit in the ruling partys eye, so thats enough for me to vote for him and someone who has the same political outlook.
    Alan Breckon. He stands up for the people who elected him (that shouldn’t be noteworthy but it is).
    And finally Daniel Wimberley. He says the right things about social justice in his manifesto and is a new face. I have nothing against the other new faces up for election and would be happy to vote for them in the next senatorial elections. But as Wimberley has been involved with social and charity campaigns in the past he gets my vote.”

    If you have no great objection to these candidates I would beg you to vote this way too. The ruling partys supporters will block vote for their people, the worst thing we can do is split the opposition vote.

    Nick, I will vote for you and most of the other new faces next time, but right not now.
    But could I make a suggestion? For the sake of the island and to show your political integrity stand as the ANTI-OZOUF. That is announce that if islanders wish to unelect po they should vote for you. With the proviso that if you do gain enough votes to win that you will immediately stand down and fight the next election on your own merits.
    What do you say? You rid the island of this swine and prove yourself to the electorate as a politician ready to do the right thing.

    Reply
  20. Anonymous

    It is entirely possible that Pip Ozouf might have a go for Deputy if he loses as a Senator.
    Apart from a few years as a trainee accountant it is the only work he has done and I doubt he would walk into a job paying even close to the amount he earns in the States.
    If he polls well in a St Helier district he will be back there.

    Reply
  21. Anonymous

    If Ozouf and the others try to wriggle back into the states as deputies hopefully someone will stand against him/them as a protest candidate.

    Reply
  22. Anonymous

    The time change referendum

    Isn’t it a shame that the CET question isn’t distracting people from the real issues as i suspect it was intended to.

    But still it’s set a very useful precedent by showing that a referendum can be called as easily as a by election.
    So next time there’s an important issue to decide (gst anyone?) I hope we will all have a chance to vote.

    Reply
  23. Anonymous

    Now there’s a point. Where EXACTLY is OUR ‘rainy day fund’?
    Which bank is it deposited with? Who is investing it and where?
    How has the credit crisis affected OUR savings?
    Because they are ours, not franks or terrys and i for one would like to know the answers.
    The states must have those answers to hand because frank has just assured the world that we have 600 million in reserve. Now there couldn’t possibly be any argument for confidentiality as proof of liquidity is a wonderful thing in the current climate.
    Do you know the answer to this one Stuart?

    Reply
  24. Anonymous

    Was I hearing correctly this morning? A relative (Nellie Macon) of standing candidate Jeremy was told she could not ask a question at the St Saviour hustings! Well that really is democracy, what are we going to do next, ban people asking questions who know the candidates? What absolute tosh, can’t wait to hear this reported in the local media!

    Reply
  25. Anonymous

    I read in ‘The Rag’ this week that the courts are stopping the media in Jersey from reporting on two cases involving the sexual abuse of children. Do you know anything about this? Is this the Oligarchy at work?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.