On the 15th October 2014 Electors are being asked to go to the polls and vote in Jersey's first ever General Election. (although a third of the Assembly has already been elected unopposed)
As part of this election there is also a referendum question that electors are being asked to vote on and that is "should the Constables remain as members of the States as an automatic right?" Electors are being asked to tick either the yes box or the no box.
There has been very little media coverage of this referendum, and indeed what coverage it has received has, in some cases, been misleading. This is NOT a question asking if the Constables should be in the States or not. It is asking if they should be there as an automatic right of their Office.
Due to the lack of State Media coverage concerning this crucial referendum vote, VFC invited a member from the "YES" camp, James Rondel (Committee Member for YES campaign 2014), and a member of the "NO" camp, Deputy Sam Mezec, (Deputy St. Helier No.2) to discuss the issues surrounding the referendum question, and hopefully generate some interest in it. Thankfully they both agreed and were appreciative of the opportunity to make their case for and against as I was appreciative of their engagement.
This is not so much an interview but a discussion between both camps. I did not challenge anything said by either James or Sam as it was up to them to make their case and up to readers/viewers to decide who set out the best stall.
Hopefully readers/viewers will find the debate below both engaging and informative and might get inspired to cast a vote on October 15th? The discussion is published in its entirety as this is the service offered by Citizens Media not available with the State Media.
Below the discussion video is Sam Mezec with his "piece to camera" explaining why he believes people should be voting "NO" in the referendum and below that is James Rondel's piece to camera explaining why he believes people should be voting "YES" in the referendum.
The Constables have got a vote in the States but they have not been elected by the public to do so. Is this not undemocratic along with creating an imbalance in the voting system? We see in the JEP how each member votes, usually a day after assembly sittings on Tuesdays. Constables have been allowed these voting rights for years, to the detriment of politicians who have brought propositions for the public good. Who whether middle class or working, pay their taxes for paid politicians to act in their best interests of living on this Island. With the Attorney General also in the judiciary Constables are under his rule. Therefore they are highly unlikely to vote against their boss’s wishes. WOULD YOU?
ReplyDeleteThe clique of Constables certainly seems to have a way of drawing newcomers "into the fold". Simon Crowcroft resisted for many years as a principled progressive. Palot reverted to type virtually immediately.
DeleteMaybe it is the lure of the Freemasonry gravy train or maybe it is something else?
Refreshing to see some actual debate going on and from two well informed individuals on both sides. Actually James Rondel raised a few points that I hadn't considered, so its good to here those.
ReplyDeleteRegardless I don't see that the Constables are really in touch with the views of the parish. What they are in touch with is a relatively small number of parochial groupies and cronies who always attend the parish hall meetings and generally talk to much crap IMHO. If you don't believe me go an attend a parish hall meeting and sit at the back. Then you'll see them all rubber necking you with suspicion, and furtively whispering to themselves, "who is this outsider who dares to attend OUR meeting". I also suspect that much of the constables "grass roots" polling is actually done around the dining room table with invited friends, or even possibly, dare I say it, down the lodge?
These are the real reasons why constables seats go uncontested.
Well done James and Sam for getting this debate out there. I have taken note James of your points with interest, but on balance I think Sam is right and removing them is the only democratic option.
JRCbean
The Connétable is the head of a corporate body, which is the Parish; this separate legal entity of corporation (the Parish) has been created directly through legislation established by law which has been passed by the Royal Court empowered by letters patent that has been granted by the Monarch.
DeleteThe office of Connétable is directly responsible to the Judiciary which has created the corporate divisions of each Parish by Royal Charter (letters patent), and grants a monopoly of power to each Connétable over the specified division of territory (the Parish) which the Connétable represents.
Originally, this system of corporation in which the body of people in the parish are represented by a head - the Connétable, is part of a feudal system of 'divide and rule', which was created to subjugate the Islands people into divisions which could be easily managed and controlled.
The office of Connétable has no place sitting in the States Chamber, the Connétable does not represent all of the people of the island when voting, the Connétable's representation to voting electorate is not even equally proportionate across all of the parishes.
Disproportionate representation created by a divided electorate being forced to vote within the confinements of the old parish feudal system of artificially imposed corporate boundaries is wrong, and has no place in a 21st Century democracy.
It is no secret that many of the Connétables are also freemasons who's loyalties have been secretly sworn to the Crown, thus further reinforcing control over the current feudal state of corporate governance.
Because of these facts, it is a "NO" from me.
Thank you Anon for that valuable history and insight. Interesting that you say that many of the Connetable's are known freemasons. It would be an interesting question also to ask at one of the hustings of the Senatorial hopefulls. Which of them would openly like to declare or refute any membership or association with the freemasons.
DeleteI could probably call out exactly who would say no (and I would believe them), yes (unlikely anyone), and would refuse to answer one way or another, or obfuscate (and i can guess the real answer). A bit like Peter denying Jesus three times, although I am not a religious man.
JRCbean
There should be only one type of States Member elected in a free, equal and fair island-wide vote.
DeleteThank you. Will study that with interest. I can already spot a few names I know but don't surprise me.
DeleteJRCbean
Dear JRCbean,
DeleteDo not forget, those who have studied law in the United Kingdom may well be members of lodges in the United Kingdom; lodges such as the Chancery Bar Lodge 2456, Gray's Inn Lodge 4938, Western Circuit Lodge 3154 or the Apollo University Lodge no. 357 for present and past members of Oxford University. Such persons will not be recorded in the Jersey year book list of Free Mason's.
There still appears to be a general lack of clarity about the roles of the various categories of States member. This was a fundamental issue within the Clothier Report which recommended that there should only be one type of States Member.
ReplyDeleteSam Mezec made a good point towards the end of the interview when he said that most, perhaps all parishioners are happy with the performance of their Constables as Head of the Parishes whereas a large majority of the public are very dissatisfied with the performance of the States - i.e. States Members in general. I believe this is because the type of individual who wants to be a Constable in the role of Head of the Parish is usually very different to the type of individual who wants to be a States Member. This is why so many Constables have been returned to office without competition.
It is also undeniable that some of the Constables are well capable of discharging their States role as well as the Head of Parish role whilst others are patently unsuited to this. So I have no problem with the suggestion that there should be one class of States Member and that Constables who want to stand as one of those members should do so in addition to their duties as Head of Parish.
The argument for "yes" seems to be predominantly based on the Parish representation in the States - i.e. the claim that the Constable is a States Member is somehow of benefit to ordinary parishioners and, if the Constable were not a States Member, parish services would somehow suffer. Here lies my confusion about roles of States Members. We currently have parish Deputies. These are elected directly by parishioners, presumably to represent their interests within the States. This point was not raised directly in the interview but is there a sub text here that the Deputies are not really performing this role? If this is the case, then let us have some honesty and clarity. Common sense would say that if the Constables were not States Members ex officio then the Deputies should be more than capable of representing parish interests - provided that they establish and maintain effective and honest relationships with the Constables.
@9:31
Delete"...the type of individual who wants to be a Constable in the role of Head of the Parish is usually very different to the type of individual..."
Yes, Constables are primarily ADMINISTRATORS, which many people do not have an aptitude for OR the inclination to spend their days in that mundane grind.
In addition they are usually drawn from the clique of parish busy bodies and networkers and control-hungry (e.g. via the hobby bobbies etc.)
As pointed out by Sam, most people are happy with the Constables' administrative role but it would be difficult to come up with a system tending to draw from (& be representative of) such a narrow portion of the population and so guaranteed to rarely face an election.
No wonder Bailhache et al love their archaic system
and even want to reduce the other elected members to "future proof" their power !!!
Strengthen the Parishes by giving the Constables their undivided attention.
The highlight of the debate was when James Rondel asserted that the Constables were vital to delivering e-government !
ReplyDeleteOne suspects that there might be a misunderstanding on the mention of "windows", "virus" and particularly "tablets" :-)
J.R. says "you cannot say ConSTABLE, without saying STABLE"
DeleteHmmm........ brings to mind a windy old nag one winter away from the "knacker's yard"
You also cannot say CONstable without saying "CON". Such a STABLE CON which has lasted many centuries!
DeleteAnd if they are able to turn on a computer without assistance perhaps they could be Neo-Con-Stables; to reflect both their modernity, their usual politics and their agricultural roots :-)
DeleteLet the parish administrators concentrate on efficient parish administration. If there is genuinely a parish matter which needs bringing up in the states then they could surely pick up the telephone to an INCREASED number of WHOLE PARISH Deputies.
Having "whole parish" deputies would increase the diversity of parish representation and ensure that all (or nearly all) Deputies faced a contested election.
Regarding the "STABLE CON"; To be fair to the Constables, they did start accepting this newfangled concept of "democracy" in 1947 after (most of) the Nazis left.
The extreme left can be equally guilty of gerrymandering election systems. The former East Germany called itself the "German Democratic Republic"
The GDR had its system for ensuring the "correct" electoral outcome, we have ours. Different admittedly but "same difference" as the saying goes.
REFORM PARTY & DIGITAL PARTY
ReplyDeleteWhy doesn't James Rondel, and all of the digital party candidates, be honest with the public and get the DIGITAL PARTY constituted in the states like the Reform Party have .
Its a dishonest form of electioneering that the "right" are undertaking in . We have a Mr Scott Wickenden, Mr Christian May , and other candiates, + several local 3rd party Digital company lobbyists who are quite clearly lobbying for the Digital Jersey Crew to be represented in the states.
Its all about E GOV & E HEALTH, and the sooner the advocates of this agenda start being honest with the public the better we will be informed of their plans for jersey.
Why wont they? thats the question the discerning of us are asking.
Difference between the 2 speakers here, one is acting for ALL of the people in the island, the other is acting for the people who want to keep a strangle hold on making sure we don't have a fully democratic government.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't matter how anyone dresses up the submissions, the Yes campaign is truly undemocratic and im failing to see how Mr Rondel can sit there in 2014 and advocate an undemocratic form of government.
Well said, you are right.
DeleteIt ain't easy voting for change ..........especially if you happen to live in St.Lawrence
ReplyDeletewww.vote.je/where-to-vote/parishes/st-lawrence/
"Deidre Mezbourian was re-elected unopposed as Connétable.
John Le Fondré and Eddie Noel were re-elected unopposed as Deputies."
Hence in St. Lawrence there will be NO elections for parish representatives this year!
Same in Grouville
DeleteAh but no, eh!" Feudal jurisdictions do not do as they want, they do as they are told...
ReplyDeleteAbsolute nonsense the young man Rondel talks , you ask anyone in a country parish and they will tell you the same thing i.e Constables have lost touch with their parishes and DO NOT do the job they used to do 10-20 years ago.
ReplyDeleteConstables are no longer needed to represent the business of each parish, so what do they do ? they surely don't do politics -- but come in every time for a block vote every time the ministers email them to tell them how important their votes are!
Constables,,,please to wake up and stop swallowing everything you are told my Ozouf and the like ....these ministers are destroying our island and our way of life... and you constables are allowing him to do it by ommission , ignorance, or not doing or being what you are paid to do ... being politicians!
Its a shame the apathetic Jersey electorate don't have the same passion for politics as the Scottish...
ReplyDeleteJames Russell STONEYBURN, UNITED KINGDOM
"Because Gordon Brown is a potato-faced Visigoth who destroys everything he touches, like an epileptic Dalek made out of roped-together burst sofa cushions. I hope he shits out his skeleton in the middle of the night and it runs away to join the circus."
Further to Who to vote for #1 (It's your vote USE IT or LOSE IT)
ReplyDeleteIf you cannot get out to vote on election day you can still cast your votes at St. Paul’s Centre in Dumaresq Street, St. Helier - NO MATTER WHERE YOU LIVE ON THE ISLAND
St. Paul’s Centre is open for pre-poll voting from 8 am to 6 pm WEEKDAYS up to and including Monday 13th October
You need a driving licence OR a passport etc as photo ID
More info at www.vote.je/where-to-vote/pre-polling/
==============
Many (myself included) would seek sensible recommendation as to WHO to vote for.
Personally I am right leaning but I am happy to give a chance to anyone suitable from the centre-left or centre-right, especially if they demonstrate any moral fortitude and any ability to resist by the secret far-right "Establishment Party"
SARAH FURGUSON is top of my list having well-proven herself (after a shaky start)
I will probably vote ANNE SOUTHERN because she is a "Reform Jersey" candidate
Reform Jersey at least is a focus for reform and opposition which may curb unbridled power and begin to hold it to account
This overcomes my lack of knowledge of her record (including as a civil service/teachers(?) union rep.
Are there any other REFORM JERSEY senatorial candidates?
How about john young ? ........ is he OK or OK-ish?
.......................?
.......................?
I should like to use all 8 senatorial votes as I work up the list of the "least bad"
Which candidates are FREEMASONRY LINKED ?
VFC (& and informed readers) do you have any suggestions on the least bad?
PLEASE HELP, and then perhaps follow with recommendations (for or against) the various parish candidates.
We don't want "more of the same" or the continued cover-up of child abuse.
What I will say, at this moment in time, is that if you don't want more of the same then DON'T vote for theses Establishment Party Members (EPM)
DeletePhilip Bailhache.
Guy De Faye
Sean Power
Lyndon Farnham
Malcolm Ferey
Ian Gorst
Alan Maclean.
Philip Ozouf.
Paul Routier.
On first reading of Monty's blog I missed his humorous substitution of "Venus Commission" in the place of "Venice Commission"
ReplyDeleteSadly "Anus Commission" might be even more appropriate
...particularly in view of the chronic Constable's and Honorary's historical child protection failures.
Perhaps Monty was too polite to say that.
Also rather apt as it is utter 'CRAP' to claim that the ex-officio "rights" of the Constables at present meet the Venice Commission / European Commission for Democracy requirements.
Please vote "NO". A vote for no does NOT mean the end of the Constables or of the best parts of the parish system.
Indeed it has the potential to strengthen these, while giving the Constables the right to stand for separate election for the states id they so wish and are capable of performing in both jobs.
Does "Anus Commission" bring to mind Jerseys hijacked "Independent" Electoral Commission"?
ReplyDeleteReaders might find THIS 30 SECOND VIDEO of some use.
ReplyDeleteAren't those nodding dogs just soooo cute!
DeleteNone of them try to hump your leg
....or the kids
do they?
A lighthearted look at the REAL Yes campaign HERE
ReplyDeleteReaders might also be interested in Rico's latest posting concerning, what could be, a serious security breach or gross incompetence of the JERSEY CHILD ABUSE INQUIRY.
ReplyDeleteVery unprofessional, if not negligent malpractice to be sending out copies of witness statements by ordinary letter post. These statements should at the very least be sent by recorded delivery which is "signed for" by the recipient, or by courier; the packaging should also be far more robust to make it tamper proof.
DeleteSeeing the terrible condition the envelope that Lenny Harper's statement arrived from the Royal Mail just made me feel sick inside. This will have almost certainly been read by someone who could not help them self or someone that had intentionally helped themselves...
Shameful, utterly shameful malpractice by the C.O.I.!
VFC, off topic, but just a tip for twitter. If you want your tweets to be more widely read, use the 'dot' notation if you START a tweet with someone's @ name.
ReplyDeleteTechnical explanation here: http://shoqvalue.com/what-does-dot-atsign-mean-on-twitter
For example, your recent tweet to '@lewisa1963' would be better sent to '.@lewisa1963' if you are going to start your tweets with someone's twitter name.
Perhaps you could pass the tip on to other Jersey tweeters?
BBC Jersey radio this morning in a news bulletin said,
ReplyDeleteThe Committee of Enquiry have spoke with Mr Harper and are taking seriously the issue of his mail being ripped open before leaving Jersey and possibly read giving up confidential names of witnesses and other sensitive private information.
The spokes person for the CoI went on to say there is no security issue.
Of course there is a bloody security issue, can the CoI really be taken seriously and where is the proper questioning by the BBC including questions to the post office who handled the mail.
The BBC is not in the business of asking questions, it believes repeating Press Releases is "journalism."
DeleteOf course it's an absolute nonsense that there has been no security breach when a letter arrives already opened. I have e-mailed the Inquiry Team asking questions and intend publishing that e-mail along with any response I might get. I do not expect even having my e-mail acknowledged and almost certainly will not have my question answered as this is the way the Inquiry Team conducts its business.