‘Meet the New Boss – Same as the Old Boss.’

The New Candidates:

A Look at Reality.

One of the fundamental failings of Jersey’s political culture is that we repeatedly allow ourselves to be conned by candidates. But even on those rare occasions we get sufficiently cross to actually kick out a few of the clowns – all to often we are hoodwinked into voting for new candidates – who end up being nothing more than carbon-copies of those we’ve just got rid of.

As The Who song has it: “Meet the news boss, same as the old boss.”

But too often we do allow ourselves to get fooled again.

A good example being Alan MacLean. He of GST exemptions infamy.

But he isn’t the only one. And it’s genuinely difficult to convey to the public just how utterly unreliable some candidates are. Even though I’ve been in politics a long time – I still get fooled by certain new candidates.

Two examples leap to mind. Ben Shenton – who made all the right noises – until he became Health & Social Services Minister – and “went-native” in about a week.

To this day he is happily tolerating expensive civil servants in his department – who are proven, evidenced liars who have concealed child abuse.

Another is Juliette Gallichan. Thinking that anything had to be better than Geoffrey Grime, I actually supported her in a Senatorial by-election, in the hope that if she didn’t win, she’d at least be well-placed to oust Grime – a man whose sole talent is helping 1(1)K tax-exiles to dodge even more tax.

Yet the very instant she was elected, her rabid ambition became comically obvious – ingratiating herself with the establishment and doing all she could to crawl to people like Philip Ozouf and Frank Walker. Her pretension to being ‘independently-minded’ vanished in a storm of social-climbing.

But her husband is a Freemason, so I blame myself – I should have known what to expect.

So – who do I think we run the serious risk of being fooled by this time around?

Firstly, it’s important to note – in fairness – that not all newcomers prove to be utterly unreliable.

Whilst we may vote for new candidate X or Y – in the hope they’ll be different, sometimes the fault lays with us in not making a sufficiently realistic assessment – even though the evidence is there to be seen.

Take for example, Mike Higgins. A decent enough man, I’m sure. He makes some of the right noises in his election material – and I’ve no grounds for doubting what he says.

But just how realistic would be an expectation that this man would really be on the side of ordinary people? Just look at his background.

Worked in aerospace, organises the Jersey Air Display, taught banking, was a member of the Jersey Financial Services Commission, has worked at “the highest levels” with “local business leaders, civil servants and politicians, overseas governments” –and “high-ranking military officers”.

Somehow – I just get the feeling that a person with this background is – inevitably -on the side of the establishment. But, in fairness – the warning signs are there in his election statements.

We have no excuses for not recognising that Mike – like several of the other newcomers – simply represents more of the same old establishment attitudes and policies.

And what we need in these elections is some change.

A newcomer who we can rely on to represent genuine change is Chris Perkins. A man who has been totally consistent over the years in his efforts to prevent the complete, environmental destruction of Jersey.

Intelligent, well-researched – and committed to controlling population growth. Should Chris be elected – I’m very confident that he would be in that category of member from who you know exactly what you’re going to get in exchange for your vote.

Mick Pashley? Again – I’m sure he’s a nice enough person, but how do we really get a handle on what he stands for – on how he would actually perform as a States member?

His on-line manifesto is thin – to say the least. As is his entry in the ‘Candidate Profiles’ as published by The Rag – in which he only used half the available space. Sorry – but we simply just don’t know enough about his political policies to risk a vote on him.

Though listening to the radio hustings, he did state unambiguously that if unsuccessful, he wouldn’t run as a Deputy. I’ve no strong views about such things – but he has at least made his position clear.

But there are some newcomers who we do know a good deal about – too much for comfort, in fact.

Of all the newcomers – the main oligarchy hope is Ian Le Marquand – a text-book example off of the production-line of Jersey establishment scions.

We can all be categorically certain of what we’ll get from Mr. Le Marquand – more of the same from the Jersey establishment.

GST? Population growth? Development? Business as usual for the oligarchy?

More of the same, basically?

Yes – that much is starkly plane from his background and manifesto.

He is one of those establishment candidates who see their election as a done-deal; simply the natural order of things that they should get elected. All of the text-book arrogance and haughtiness – and sheer presumption – is visible in spades.

I would have opposed Ian on those grounds – simply that he’s just yet another Jersey establishment apparatchik with decidedly Right-wing political views.

However – something occurred to grab my attention and make me profoundly alarmed at the prospect of him as a States member.

Anyone – including a substantial number of the victims – who knows the detail of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster, will know that, in large measure, the Police were a part of the problem in decades gone by. Not only was a degree of corruption present in the force, it was also prevented from doing its proper duty by too close a level of direct political control.

Fortunately – those days are over – which is one of the reasons that we see decade after decade of appalling child abuses only now being exposed.

We have an operationally independent Police Force – which is just as it should be.

After all – every other Police Force the length of the nation operates independently of direct, political control.

But when Ian declared himself to be a candidate in these elections, he said this:

“The issue about oversight of the police is based on a growing concern over a lengthy period of time that the police were increasingly operating as if they were a politically independent organisation. That predates the Haute de la Garenne investigation by about two years. It is a long-standing concern that they are operating without effective political oversight.”

This statement made me profoundly alarmed.

In democratic societies – police forces ARE “politically independent organisations.”

What Ian seeks is a deeply worrying return to the bad old days of political pressure on the Police.

Some readers may recollect we had an exchange of letters printed by The Rag. I wrote expressing concerns at his assertions, and he replied. I replied in turn – but – no surprises – The Rag wouldn’t print my second letter.

So I reproduce it below this post – so that readers may get a handle on the nature of the issues.

But even more concerning in many ways – is the fact that Ian blithely declares himself to be a candidate for the post of Home Affairs Minster.

There is the small matter of getting elected first. And then we must ask, would it really be in the public interest to place the Police under the yoke of a barrack-room lawyer – who will clearly have an uncontrollable urge to tell them what to do all the time?

But what adds yet another layer of truly startling presumption to his comments is his total inability to see that he is completely conflicted from having any involvement whatsoever with Home Affairs – for as long as present investigations continue.

The plain fact is that all of public administration in Jersey – including the courts – has been engaging in simply criminal mistreatment – unlawful and abusive practices – against vulnerable children.

Of the magistrates, Ian was always the most rabid in insisting that children be imprisoned – even to the extent of the unlawful use of solitary confinement against the kids.

He was a component of the apparatus which was acting in completely ultra vires ways.

But yet he somehow believes he can just march into a seat in the States – and march into the Home Affairs Ministry – as though none of these conflicts existed.

It’s a truly remarkable display of the customary hubris of the Jersey establishment.

Even worse – when you consider that one of Ian’s close colleagues – another magistrate – is presently suspended whilst under police investigation for potential offences. (Not related to child protection, I must point out).

How can a man who’s recent, close colleague is under police investigation – think for one instant it would be appropriate for them to take over political responsibility for the Police Force?

As I’ve remarked on so many occasions before – you just couldn’t make it up.

But even were it not for the above facts, we would still have to face the fact that the States assembly needs yet another hard Right-wing religious fundamentalist – about as much as I need to go on an assertiveness course.

No – as important as it is to teach the establishment a lesson by voting out their favoured sitting members – it is as every bit as important to teach the same lesson by making it plain that the sheer presumptuousness of establishment candidates will not be tolerated either.

I like Cliff Le Clercq. He is a decent enough candidate. More so, in fact, in that he has been – behind the scenes – extremely helpful to a number of the survivors of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster. Not that he has advertised this fact.

But as I’ve said previously, this is an unusually strong slate of candidates – so with great reluctance, I think this time out I’d prefer to see Cliff having a crack at a Deputy seat.

Don’t get me wrong – if the field was as feeble as it often is – he’d be getting my vote for sure. But this time there is stiff competition amongst the anti-establishment candidates.

Who shall we take a look at next?

How about Nick Le Cornu?

Followers of Jersey cyber-space will be all-too familiar with the – err – personal differences between me and Nick – so sorry to disappoint some those looking for some fireworks against him – but all that stuff has been rehearsed elsewhere already.

I think now is the time to offer political assessments.

Nick is most certainly an anti-establishment candidate. But I don’t think for one instant he has the faintest environmental considerations. On the contrary – as far as housing is concerned – he’d let the flood-gates open and just build everywhere to meet whatever level of demand occurred.

I also have to say I detect an element of the “hidden reality” about him, of the kind we get from the Jersey establishment. They pretend to be “centrist” – whilst in fact being rabid, devil-take-the-hindmost market fundamentalists. And with Nick I’m not entirely persuaded that he isn’t pretending to be centrist – whilst actually being a closet-Leninist.

I mentioned earlier just how funny much of the election material has been.

For example, Nick Le Cornu asserts that he is a – “patriot”.

My – how I laughed at that.

We all know that, to quote Samuel Johnson – “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.”

But there are many other apposite observations on “patriotism”. For example, Mark Twain wrote, “The nation is divided, half patriots and half traitors – and no man can tell which from which.”

Or how about this: “The heights of popularity and patriotism are still the beaten road to power and tyranny; flattery to treachery; standing armies to arbitrary government; and the glory of God to the temporal interest of the clergy” – as observed by David Hume.

Perhaps more eloquently, Goethe wrote – “Patriotism ruins history.”

I point these things out because whilst one expects the “patriotism” card to be played by the establishment candidates – it’s more than a little surprising to see an anti-establishment candidate using the same gambit.

I know Trevor Pitman from Grand Vaux Youth Club, and as a JDA candidate – we could be confident – whether we agreed with their views or not – they are at least going to be reliable in attempting to adhere to their election promises. There’ll be no need to say, “won’t get fooled again” if the JDA candidates succeed.

What you see is what you get. If you like it – then vote for them in confidence that they ‘do what it says on the tin’ – which is vastly more than can be said for the many slippery oligarchy candidates.

Montfort Tadier I think is a very impressive candidate. Young, energetic, sincere and intelligent. I’ve no doubt at all that he would make a good – reliable – States member if elected.

Adrian Walsh I also regard as an extremely credible candidate. I think it fair enough to describe Adrian’s views as being on the centre-Right – a conservative if you will.

Therefore I expect I’d have policy differences with him if he were a States member. But I have no problem with that. I realise it takes a cross-section of views to make the legislature function well.

What distinguishes Adrian from the Right-wing we’re used to seeing in the Jersey oligarchy is that he is far more modern – and vastly more open and reliable in his policies.

Daniel Wimberley – an intelligent and compassionate candidate. A man with a well-documented record of voluntary campaigning on issues of social justice and environmental protection.

Those of you who are familiar with Jersey politics will recollect that a few years ago, the oligarchy engaged in a text-book example of “manufacturing consent” – with the so-called “Imagine Jersey” spin and manipulation event.

Daniel participated in that exercise – and wrote a succinct and devastating critique of it. He absolutely nailed all of the opinion-management techniques at work. I was so impressed I copied and sent his letter to several of the very senior civil servants and spin-doctors involved in the exercise – asking them to answer his criticisms.

All of them simply refused to do so. Because there was no answer they could credibly offer.

Daniel had them sussed – right from the get-go.

As with other anti-establishment candidates – you could vote for Daniel in absolute confidence that he would perform as advertised – unlike the traditional Jersey oligarchy candidates.

Jeremy Macon also looks like being a reliable and very vote-worthy candidate. Let’s face it – anyone who has infuriated Philip Ozouf, Alan MacLean – and their spin-doctor, Glenn Rankine – so much, has got to be doing something right.

Again, his problem is that he is up against a pretty strong field of anti-establishment candidates. And at the tender age of 21, you have to ask is he ready for a Senatorial seat? Should he be unsuccessful in these elections, I certainly hope he runs – and is successful – as a Deputy. We do need a few younger people in the States.

Hell, it’d be worth having him as a States member merely for the entertainment value of seeing his mum stand-up to the bulling thuggery of Rankine, Ozouf, and MacLean etc.

Nick Palmer will – as I’ve said elsewhere – be getting one of my 6 votes. Back in the early 1990’s – when, for my sins, I was a member of the then Public Services Committee, I worked closely with Nick in campaigning against all the pollution and filth from the incinerator.

He is very intelligent, extremely well-informed – and strongly independently-minded.

Just how many more times do we get mugged into voting for false-environmentalists? Nick – like several of the other candidates – will be a genuine and reliable force in protecting our environment.

Unlike those oligarchy candidates – who spout a little greenwash at election time – and then carry on with the destruction as soon as they’re elected.

Then we come to Mark Forskitt.

If we had a form of proportional representation in our voting system – whereby we wrote numbers of preference against our candidates, rather than puting a cross – Mark would be getting my number ‘1’ in these elections.

He is absolutely the very kind of candidate Jersey now NEEDS to be elected. He too is committed to protecting the environment; he too is intellectual, well-informed and capable of seeing that the future just cannot sustain our present mode of living.

He understands peak-oil – and just what an immense problem it’s going to be. He empathises with the poor, doesn’t believe we should be taxing food – and he quotes Ghandi. What else do you need?

One thing, actually.

Jersey society has a lot of truth-facing to do. We, as a community need to face up to the fact – for it is a fact – that collectively we have failed perhaps hundreds of vulnerable children – often in the most dreadful of ways.

If we are a decent community – we must confront that fact.

Mark experienced being in care as a child. He is one of the founding-members of the Jersey Care Leavers Association. What better means could we have of showing the world that decent Jersey people care – that we want to elect a person who can empathise with children who have been through the system?

As I said – Mark is my very first choice as candidate in these elections.

Let us hope he succeeds – the age of the greed-and-concrete Jersey Establishment Party are now over. As a community we need to turn to different leaders.

So that’s a not-so-brief tour of the newcomers who are candidates in this election.

Personally – I still haven’t yet quite decided on the full 6 votes – which everyone must use this time. But I promise I’ll make my mind up for tomorrow night’s posting, when I’ll be listing the 21 candidates in order of preference – or anti-preference – as the case may be.

And on Tuesday – the day before the election – I’ll be setting aside the polite and diplomatic approach I’ve adopted so far – and be offering a few pithy observations on the election.

Watch this space.


The man who laughs in the face of defamation actions.



8th August 2008

Letters to the Editor
Jersey Evening Post

It’s both reassuring – and tediously predictable – to see a would-be politician attempting to re-invent history as Mr. Le Marquand does in his letter of the 7th August.

Reassuring – in that the original, dangerous assertions made by Mr. Le Marquand have now been largely abandoned by him – and sadly predictable to observe the “flexibility” required to elide, re-cast and spin issues, which is so common in the sphere of public administration.

Let us look at the facts.

These are the original words as used by Mr. Le Marquand:

“The issue about oversight of the police is based on a growing concern over a lengthy period of time that the police were increasingly operating as if they were a politically independent organisation. That predates the Haute de la Garenne investigation by about two years. It is a long-standing concern that they are operating without effective political oversight.”

Those are the actual words of Mr. Le Marquand – an unambiguous objection to the Police “operating as if they were a politically independent organisation.”

Now – having perhaps recognised that he’d blundered by showing his hand – Mr. Le Marquand now writes – in an attempt to re-invent the past – that:

“I am not and have never been talking about political control of the Police. I am talking about political oversight of the police. There is a very clear difference between operational matters and policy matters.”

When Mr. Le Marquand writes “I have never been talking about political control of the Police” – it cannot but make a stark contrast with his previous position, in which he did, expressly, object to the ‘Police operating as if they were politically independent’.

Mr Le Marquand accuses me of “misrepresenting his position”. No – I did not. As can be clearly seen in the contrast between his comments of the 23rd July – and his comments in his letter of the 7th August.

The only misrepresentation on display is that by Mr. Le Marquand – who would now have the public forget his original, disturbingly authoritarian, comments.
In my letter of the 23rd, I wrote:

“Every police force the length of the nation operates on a politically independent basis. The government sets the laws and sets the policies. The Police then undertake their duties within that framework – operationally independent of political control.”

Mr. Le Marquand even, quite shamelessly, claims that he is “pleased to see that Senator Syvret agrees with me on these issues” when referring to the above-quote taken from my letter of the 23rd.

No, it is Mr. Le Marquand who is now, apparently, agreeing with me – by way of contrast to his original disturbing assertions.

It is certainly true that I spoke with Mr. Le Marquand on Saturday 26th July and discussed these issues. The supposed “explanation” he offered on that occasion was every bit as unconvincing and slippery as that in his letter of the 7th August.

But – reading Mr. Le Marquand’s letter closely, it is still, in fact, far from clear just where he would strike the boundary between the necessary independence of the Police and political direction.

It is, for example – very, very – notable that he says it would be “quite wrong for any politician to seek to interfere in any way with the way in which police officers deal with individual cases. The prevention, detection and investigation of individual crimes are all matters for the police and for the police alone.”

That word, “individual” – used twice – leaps from the page.

Are we to take it from this that Mr. Le Marquand – whilst not wanting to interfere with “individual” cases and “individual” crimes – would regard it as quite legitimate – at a policy level – to interfere politically with the Police and direct them as to which categories of investigation they should concentrate on? Of which areas of criminal activity the Police must focus on? Or particular types of crimes? Or which particular broad investigations that the Police should, or should not, undertake? For example, the historic child abuse investigation?

Might such an investigation not be viewed as “inconvenient” or “politically” undesirable by some hypothetical politicians? Ministers, perhaps, who had the power to tell the Police – “Don’t investigate that episode of criminal activity – use your resources instead on catching more speeding motorists and TV licence dodgers”?

As I said originally – the Police must be democratically accountable; and the appropriate and correct means of such accountability is via the laws and policies set by a government. The Police must work within that broad framework.

But once that framework is established – it is crucial that the Police are not subjected to political interferences which could see them being ‘directed’ to ignore a serious area of criminal activity – and instead focus on another, which happened to be more “convenient” for the politicians of the day.

I would like to be able to say I’m glad Mr. Le Marquand has changed his mind – and now agrees with me.

But I cannot do so – because his actual views remain elusive and ambiguous.

Will he state plainly whether he agrees that the Police must work to the laws and policies as agreed by the States assembly – but that that is as far as the political sphere can go into the realms of policing?

Does he accept that the Police, once they have been given the laws and policies of the government, must be free to make their own strategic decisions as to how, and which crimes they fight?

Will Mr. Le Marquand state plainly that he does not support a policy which could see the Police being told what particular categories of investigation they could, or could not undertake?

He really should remove any ambiguity from his position – because my understanding is that the Police found his original comments every bit as disturbing as I did.

Yours sincerely,

Senator Stuart Syvret

36 thoughts on “JERSEY ELECTION SPECIAL, #4

  1. Anonymous

    Stuart, I think you are wrong about Mike Higgins. He was not “a member of the Jersey Financial Services Commission”. He was an employee – Senior Policy Manager – and his draft depositor protection law has been ignored by Ministers since 2003.

    You only need to read his advertisement on p43 of the Jersey Evening Post, Sat 11th October to realise he is NOT an establishment candidate.

    He throws down the challenge in his advertisement: “Publish the draft 2003 law and explain why you did not adopt it”.

    I think you owe him a second look and some alternative airtime (no pun intended!)

  2. Nick7

    Thanks for your comments about me Stuart. I’m glad you’ve recognised what a gem Mark Forskitt is – he’s really bright and also experienced as a Libdem councillor campaigning against the hated poll tax and a new incinerator – he keeps saying it’s all deja vu

  3. Anonymous

    so I now have geoff s, alan b, mark f, Daniel w, nick p and montfort t. That’s my six. Thanks Stuart, I was struggling with the last vote but I an now on track. Looking forward to Wednesday. Everyone, get voting. The establishment are so hoping for the usual poor turnout

  4. TonyTheProf

    I would add that while you don’t have a voting record for Ian le Marquand, his legal judgement is no means unassailable.

    On Friday, 7 January, 2005, a boy was refused bail by Ian Le Marquand on the grounds of an alleged stabbing.

    However, fast forward to July 2008 and we now find the following:

    Human rights fears over rape bail: Calls to stop people suspected of rape in Jersey being released on bail could conflict with human rights legislation, a former magistrate has warned. The plea for a change was made by the national charity Rape Crisis after a woman was raped by a man who had been bailed for a similar offence. The charity wants previous convictions for sexual offences taken into account. But former magistrate Ian Le Marquand said refusing bail could undermine the basic principles of human rights. The man accused of rape was subsequently found guilty of raping both women.

    It seems to me that one of the problems here, apart from the sheer inconsistency of legal practice, is the inability of Ian Le Marquand to understand the European Convention on Human Rights. A similar failing occurred in the Soham murders, with a misunderstanding of the Data Protection Law, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

    The Scotsman noted that anyone can apply for bail. That is in fact, the human rights position. But it does not follow that bail will be granted, only that it cannot automatically be refused. (Article 5 (c))

    Do we want to vote for a lawyer who does not really understand the new kind of legislation being incorporated into Jersey law regarding human rights?

  5. Anonymous

    Father like son!! it wasnt very long before ben shenton back stabbed u? once he had your job he was up and away, his father a man of the people ! who sold the dockers down the road!man of the people ,just another joke! worst thing is alot of people couldnt see through it, and to another great man who should have spent a time in prison, terry the crook le main? do u remember that car fiasco , when all those people lost there money? well he must of had people on his pay role , if it was me or u we,d do time, so to say the island is run buy crooks is not far fetched, well stuart u can be proud , u have alot of jersey people behind u ! who are sick and tired of being treated with the way we are, roll over and be a good chap , i also feel coming in line with europe is the first step of independence, if that happens then god help us, no doubt alot in parliment have there money here! and are looking the other way1 when people ask where im from i say crook island and that just about sums this place up , keep up the fight . i see the wheels are in motion for a witchhunt for lenny harper ! no suprise here then? i wait for the day these child abusers come to court ? along wait if ever!!!

  6. To Zero

    Very helpful Stuart, particularly your ordering of the Greens. I hope they all get in eventually but hopefully you will cover today whether voting for them all in the senatorials is the best strategy. You are more “Green biased” than the average disgruntled anti-establishment voter.

    I echo the previous comment about looking again at Mike Higgins. He was, I believe, squeezed out of JFSC for being anti-establishment and inappropriately having a conscience.

    Adrian Walsh could be a great asset to those in the States who want to grow small businesses, essential for the pending Jersey economic restructuring, and I don’t think he would just feather his own nest.

  7. Debby

    It’s taken some time for me to choose just 6 from the 21 candidates, but after reading your blog today Stuart, I’m glad to see I’ve not gone far wrong with my choices.

    They are: (in no particular order)

    Nick Palmer
    Daniel Wimbley
    Mark Forskitt
    Jeremy Macon
    Monfort Tadier
    Chris Perkins

    Roll on Wednesday!

  8. Anonymous

    Here’s my list so far:
    Nick Palmer, Mark Forskitt, Daniel Wimberley,Chris Perkins, Montfort Tadier and I need one more.


  9. Anonymous

    I have to disagree on Adrian Walsh, he has run a forum that partakes in censoring those people who didn’t have a finance outlook. Once these people were banned the pro-finance people were given free rein to slag these banned people off, knowing they couldn’t defend themselves. He was in charge of this forum and allowed certain mods to show bias against those who felt finance was having a negative impact on Jersey. If this is what modern conservatives are like you can keep them. I don’t like biased censorship, it smacks of big brother, which is what I thought we were trying to get away from. Any forum that allows people to allude to mental illness as a put down jibe should be shut down in my book. Sorry but I can’t vote for this person.

  10. voiceforchildren

    I am impressed by all the greens. Not sure if I will have enough spare votes for all of them but certainly one, possibly two.

    Jeremy Macon has come across very well at the hustings, he appears to have a fairly older head on young shoulders. Ceratainly if unsuccessfull this time around, he will be one to watch for the future.

  11. Anonymous

    dick shenton was certainly not for the working class i remember years ago working in hospital a pay rise was stopped by him for months when we went on strike and got what we wanted he was furious and said chtistmas has come early for the manual workers alot of people saw him for the snake in the grass he was also he put a stop to tesco coming here (where grande marche is)every thing was signed and sealed for it and was stopped by him about 25 or 26 years ago if it had gone ahead we wouldent be in the position we are now in with very poor choice of grocery shopping i certainly think the young shenton would be very much influenced by his father

  12. The Moving Finger

    “Jeremy Macon has come across very well at the hustings, he appears to have a fairly older head on young shoulders.”

    I agree and he has one of my votes for sure.
    There is a definate move towards him in these final days!

  13. Anonymous

    I’m sorry Stuart, I have to take severe issue with your claim of Adrian Walsh to be a credible candidate.

    Whilst Administrating Planet Jersey Walsh sanctioned the secretive manipulation of community discussion by forum staff – an action when later he was forced to admit to, claimed was done for the benefit of the community!

    This manipulation included one staff member very vocally supporting the Bailiff’s liberation day speech – probably the ONLY place amongst the local online community you could hear such support!

    Note: Walsh banned members from Planet Jersey who had previously raised questions about the suspect nature of staff behaviour, with one even being accused of the use of multiple identities to, guess what, secretly manipulate forum discussion!

    Anyone who was seen the way Planet Jersey was run under Adrian Walsh from the start will have witnessed many parallells between the methods of “control” used by Walsh and his staff to push their own agenda with methods of spin used by your much hated oligarchy.

    The forum has also in many respects shown itself to be rather pro-establishment. Much like the the examples you print of the JEP, its what goes unsaid on the forum which often reveals most.

    And much has gone unsaid on Planet Jersey as a direct result of censorship of the worst kind. Censorship which has been enacted so as not to offend the establishment viewpoint, a twisted attempt at buying some credibilty amongst States members who may view the forum.

    If that is how Walsh behaved when running an online community of less than 300 members, what does it suggest of how he will behave in real-world political power?

    Adrain Walsh has shown all the traits of one who will “go native” within weeks of gaining any seat in power. Mark my words.

    Stuart, you’ve made a VERY bad judgement call with this candidate.

  14. Stuart Syvret

    Re Planet Jersey & Adrian Walsh

    Look – I’ve said many times before that I would not allow this forum to become merely a battle-ground for the web-site wars – which rage in Jersey between different fora.

    I perhaps made a mistake in the last week in allowing any reference to local sites and those who post on them.

    I have let this one final comment through – and I will allow Adrian to reply should he wish.

    But after that – no more web-site wars on this forum.



  15. Anonymous

    Stuart, thank you for taking the time to let us know your thoughts.
    Agree with most.

    Think Jeremy Macon is worth a put.
    Like him a lot.

    Do think it best to advise all the ‘Greens’ to vote for Mark Forskitt?

  16. Anonymous

    voiceforchildren said…
    ‘I am impressed by all the greens. Not sure if I will have enough spare votes for all of them but certainly one, possibly two.’

    The problem with standing on a green agenda is that people tend to label you as a ‘green’. This labelling creates the illusion that the ‘green’ candidates lack policies in areas outside of environmental issues and which I believe is unfair on our 3 green candidates i.e. Palmer, Forskitt and Wimberley. Each of the three have demonstrated to me at least that their politics extend into the social and economic spheres in a more coherent and integrated way than the bulk of the other candidates. These are good men who know the meaning of ‘social justice’ and ‘fairness’ and who don’t just use these words to make endear themselves to the electorate in the Walker, Ozouf, Perchard etc. style.
    A vote for the all 3 of the ‘green’ candidates is a lot more than a vote for purely environmental issues. It is also a vote for social justice, fairness and economic good sense. If all 3 get in then the fine principles on which they stand will have a much stronger voice in determining Jersey’s future than if only one gets in. Also the problem with only voting for one of them is that if a lot of people do the same then the green vote will be shared between the 3 candidates and none of them may get elected as a consequence.


  17. Steve

    Thanks Stuart for your excellent posts on the subject of Senatorial candidates,I’ve now got my six names sorted (I think!).
    However,as a St.Clement resident I need help in deciding who I choose as Constable from Norman,Baudains and Wallis.Any comments or ideas?
    Many that I have spoken to(including the wife)don’t seem to be taking this portion of the election very seriously. Considering the Constable’s block vote power within the States, I think more notice should be given to the prospective candidates.

  18. Anonymous

    Some of us YouTuber human rights activists are going to light a candle and pray at 10.00pm on Tuesday night for a miracle. Just thought I’d mention it, in case some people here want to join in.


  19. Anonymous

    Should Ian Le Marquand get in – and should he get home affairs – his subsequent presumed battle to assert his will over the SoJ Police Force could very well be the undoing of the Jersey Way – for as Dylan on said ‘The times they are a ‘changing!’……………..are the Establishment going to take a battering at the polls one can only hope!

  20. Anonymous

    Sorry Stuart, but people need to know what sort of candidates are standing, it is important to have a clearer idea of what these candidates are like. I for one have had enough of big brother, bully boy tactics. I feel if people want to set up something to help get themselves elected then they should take the consequences of their actions, or inactions. I am fed up with the pandering to finance that goes on over here, nothing else seems to count or matter. Its money, money, money, people count for nothing except as to how much profit can be got from them for often a pityfull wage.

  21. Anonymous

    Going to the St Helier husting?

    BOO the establishment candidates, especially Ozouf.
    Make yourself heard!

  22. Anonymous

    And another peculiar non story from the Rag.
    Reshuffle for Ministers
    We all know that whoever becomes Chief Minister the Council of Ministers will be considerably different due to the absence of Frank and Wendy and hopefully Guy and a few others.
    So Terry le Sueur announcing that there is going to be a reshuffle is hardly news.
    Unless he is trying to persuade the voters that his new Council Of Ministers will be more inclusive so that we consider voting for Pip et al.
    Otherwise reckoning up the size of the States and the Council by the time you have deducted the untouchables, sorry Stuart and Geoff, and the useless and egotistical, names kept hidden to protect the guilty, it really comes down to a game of musical dunces’ stools with a few new faces if the Jersey Establishment Party does well in the Deputies elections.

  23. Dawn

    In response to Steve and his dilemma over the Connetable issue of St Clement .
    I have been doing some soul searching on this myself,and after much consideration have decided to vote for Baudain.
    I have studied both his and Norman’s voting patterns,and to give credit where it is due both have stepped up from the plate and voted with their consciences over some of the more fundamental issues.
    I have put aside personalities,and gone for the one that I think is going to stand up and not afraid to rock the boat.Also,hope and pray he might just not join the connetables block voters.
    My other reason for voting is a tactical one,if Baudain gets elected as Connetable,it will free up a Deputy seat,which hopefully will be filled with a progressive type candidate,who I know are in the background waiting to enter the fray.
    Norman has claimed he would not stand for Deputy,if not elected.So
    So this is the way I intend to go.
    Hope this is some help.

  24. Stuart Syvret

    Ministerial Re-shuffle

    Yes – another really comical example of pro-oligarchy spin-doctoring.

    It’s designed to get the public brain-washed into just accepting him as Chief Minster – as though it were an inevitability.

    The sheer presumption in T le S’s comments is another display of the hubris we’ve come to expected from this complacent establishment.

    Who the hell is he to presume the establishment won’t get wiped-out in the elections?

    That there’d be nobody in the assembly who would vote for him – with the exception of a few constables and a few people like Ben Shenton, Jimmy Perchard and Freddy Cohen?

    But assuming it is T le S who ends up as Chief Minister – he most certainly could forget having me in any cabinet of his.

    I’ve become decidedly choosy about the political company I keep in the States.


  25. Anonymous

    I think an Establishment wipe out is unlikely due to the bizarre voting procedures:
    1) Senators le Sueur, Perchard, le Main and Cohen are not up for election.

    2) At least eight Constables are 100% ‘reliable’. Most will be returned unopposed.

    3) We will have to see how the Deputies elections go but I would reckon at least six loyalists like James Reed in St Ouen will get in unopposed or against fairly weak opposition.

    So they have at least eighteen seats before anything starts. Throw in a few flip flops and the odd social climber and losing all the Senatorial races would still leave them in a strong voting position.
    Now would they have the brass neck to put Terry le Sueur as Chief minister and govern despite their almost complete loss of moral authority….

    They will if a numerically stronger but divided opposition lets them!

  26. Anonymous

    RBS, Lloyds TSB and HBOS are now part owned (nationalized) by a labour government. Just think if the Tories were in government, the colour of many of our politicians, like Ozouf and MacLean, they may have been left to under. Now we have some new candidates standing who are Tories at heart is this what we really want? The sh!t has well and truely hit the fan. Any right of centre should be avoided like the plague, in my mind, because this capitalistic con is coming home to roost with a vengence. Do you want more Enronesque cons? If you, do I suggest you vote for ardent capitalists, like the two above. If you have finally seen through these peoples disguises maybe you should stick with centre and lefties, who at least have a kind caring heart. These people know that this capitalist system is a joke and that it is time for a change. Are you able to see this? If you are get out and vote these people out before the island is sold to the highest bidder and covered in concrete in the name of capitalism and free market economy.

    Maybe a finance type person could answer as to why three top UK banks have had to be bailed out and how high are these three safe banks in Jersey’s top 500? Doesn’t look good for Jersey does it? Nevermind Phil thinks alls ok and Jersey will be fine.

    Also since none of Jersey’s banks are in the top 500 due to them being subsidaries of the big banks and only share their name, what is the chance of any of these going down? Are they higher or lower than the top 500 big banks? If they are more likely to go down I’d say Jersey is not safe. Laugh! I’m laughing all the way to bank to get my money out before it goes under.

  27. Anonymous

    didnt we say the establishment would try anything to keep control and sew confusion

    backing new candidates that sound radical is always a good one

    look at Palin in the US,

  28. Anonymous

    I read the first paragraph in Phillip Ozoufs propanganda in tonights rag – titled STABILITY

    I quote………..’we are in a much better position than most to weather the storm. It is vital that responsible policies are pursued in order to maintain our standard of living!’

    On what scientific data does he assume this?
    Is he comparing Jersey to other offshore juridstictions?

    Is he comparing Jersey to other crowm dependancies?

    Is he comparing Jersey to all industrialised economies?

    Is that paragraph written for the landed gentry of the island for surely it is they that wish to maintain their standard of living.

    Mr Ozouf if you read this may I suggest that you go to a meeting of AGE CONCERN and ask pensioners if they wish to maintain their standard of living, go and knock on a few doors around some estates and ask families if they wish to maintain their standard of living.

    It will no doubt surprise you to know that many on this island want to improve their standard of living, especially those living on the poverty line.

    Needless to say I did not get further than that first paragraph – it went straight into my bin, I would have recycled it but it was too glossy for that- try using recycled paper next time it’s better for the environment!

  29. Anonymous

    Back stabbers to the end
    Read this book and it will enlighten you as to the values of the Shenton family.


    This book was very informative and when it was first published caused a huge controversy. The powers that be at the time tried to get the book banned.

  30. Anonymous

    Quote “I read the first paragraph in Phillip Ozoufs propanganda in tonights rag – titled STABILITY “


  31. Anonymous

    Can you just allow me one comment about Planet Jersey.

    It is an excellent forum. 10 times busier than others and Stuart you do some really good posts on it. The attacks make no sense at all and you are right in stopping it.

    I also think all the wannabe candidates that make the effect to post and answer questions on Planet Jersey should be further considered (apart from Sarah Ferguson):-)


  32. Anonymous

    Ian le Marquand seems to have the right antidemocratic ideas

    The seventh question, which the States never got to because they never agreed in principle the eventual size of the States, is how would my 49 members be made up? I would favour reducing the number of Senators by 2 and the number of Deputies by 2 with the reduction of Deputies being decided upon the basis of population in the electoral districts. This would leave us with 12 Connetables, 10 Senators and 27 Deputies and with all of these to have a 4 year term so that there is a two stage general election every 4 years.

    Leaving the number of Constables the same while reducing the number of Deputies and Senators would have the net result of swinging the House in a conservative direction and it would be less representative as well.
    The idea of trying to construct a representative chamber composed of Deputies elected from constituencies seems to evade these deep thinkers again and again.
    Notice also the two stage general election which allows the two bites at the cherry strategy.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.