States reject referendum result

THE States have rejected the results of April's referendum on political reform.

THE States have rejected the results of April's referendum on political reform.

'Option B' proposed removing the ten Senators and having an Assembly made up of 30 Deputies and 12 Constables. There would have been six super-constituencies made up of clusters of parishes.

55 per cent of those who voted in April chose Option B after the second-preference votes of those choosing the two other options were reallocated. The turn-out was just 26 per cent of the electorate.

Today, States Members rejected a proposal to introduce Option B. 28 politicians voted against introducing Option B, 21 voted for it and one abstained.

The referendum was never legally-binding with the final say always resting with the States.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

Comments for: "States reject referendum result"


Dear States Members,

Thank you for a good decision !!!

Can we now start looking into some democratic ways of electoral reform please.

How for example:

12 Constables representing the parishes elected for four years.

30+ island wide mandates elected for four years.

electing 15 of them in year 1

and the other 15 in year 3,

so to have a feasible number of candidates and some continuity.


Concerned suggests an excellent way to answer 2 important issues.

The all island mandate is by far the best way to deal with concerns about equal votes.. At the same time, retaining the Connetables is the best way to have an element of grass roots representation, ensuring that island wide issues do not walk roughshod over local issues. It is the Connetables, not the Deputies, who really have local issues at heart.

the thin wallet

i agree with you both .

all elected and all by island wide mandate.


I tend to agree with you over the solution; I was an active supporter of a solution that was based on an island wide mandate (and therefore Option C as the only route to get there), but I accepted the result of the referendum "the people have spoken" - Option B.

I am however a bit shocked by the cavalier way that a majority voted against the result of the referendum, and some of the more ridiculous arguments (Dep Labey's red herring, for example, on increases in Civil Servants responsibilities - Politicians do not need to do all the work, just set the direction and make the big decisions). I would also be very interested to hear what % turnout validates a referendum! We all know that the Portuguese/Madeiran community do not, in general, vote.

I, therefore, do not agree that it was a good decision. It makes an irreversible mockery of a referendum, and casts considerable doubt on any referendum in future, given that the States allowed the referendum to go ahead in the first place, and without placing any caveat on turnout validity.

I will not be voting again for my current deputy, who only just got in under the current system, in any form of election.


It could also be argued that those who voted against the adoption of option B were supporting the silent majority. The media have failed to report that an overwhelming 88% of the voting public did NOT choose option B.

Sadly, the commission responsible for phrasing the referendum questions made one massive assumption. That the role of senator was dead. Shouldn't the people of Jersey have been given the right to decide this?

Why didn't they ask that crucial question?

Many feel strongly that the island wide mandate is important.

If Option B had included senators and two more St Helier deputies it would have walked through the vote.


I agree with much of what you say. I think you must take 2nd preferences into account, though. But, the crucial question: did the States do the right thing or not?


Turkeys and Christmas.

No surprise

As soon as people knew the result was not legally binding, guess what? they didnt vote. They knew as long as the result was not in favour of the lesser States members it was going to get voted out.


Well there's a surprise! When you look at who voted it down you can understand why. Turkey's voting for Christmas springs to mind. Quite shoking. Every single one if them should be out at the next poll.


Well there's a surprise! When you look at who voted it down you can understand why. Turkey's voting for Christmas springs to mind. Quite shoking a d a disgusting waste of taxpayers money! Every single one if them should be out at the next election. I am enraged! What a sad day for Jersey democracy!


well that was another waste of voters time!! That was the first time I have ever voted and probably the last. When will they ever listen to anything that the public has to say


Well that was predictable if nothing they are not Turkeys, But wear do they go from hear the present system is broken if not fixed at some point the population will fix it with or with out the Turkeys support.

Mr Sensible

i see bisto have brought out a new gravy flavour its based on our states assembly its called "the laughing stock"


well well what a a surprise ... and they wonder why people dont vote !!!!!!! sack the lot


You disgusting scum. Just ignore the people why dont you !

Grumpy Old Woman

The whole problem was that "the people" you mention were a very small proportion of the eligible voters.

An awful number of people didn't bother to vote because of the biased sham that the Electoral Commission became the minute Bailhache hijacked it.

With any luck they will now either listen to Senator Le Marquand (I didn't think that I would ever say that!), or alternatively they will start from scratch as was originally intended - without interference from the Turkeys.


No wonder the % is low. How will bother showing up to the next one with some stories like this one.

Bunch of fools !!!

roger phlegm

Fully agree. Bailhache hijacked what was supposed to be an independent Commission. He said he wanted to keep constables but had an open mind. So he appointed a constable and a constable's son to help him. Then came up with 3 proposals, 2 of which involved keeping constables.

We should have had a referendum on what was the best way to elect representatives. Instead we had a skewed referendum which was a proxy vote on whether to keep constables. "Biased sham" and "hijack" are totally appropriate ways of describing what happened.

I voted for him but believe Bailhache should resign. His actions as a politician have been so misguided that it makes you fear for the judgments he may have passed as Bailiff.

Pip Clement

So after all that it seems like we are going nowhere.

A majority of islanders want reform, the States could not run a bath unaided, but the messs staggers on.


The JEP (just like CTV and the BBC) have been misleading in this article.

They say that 55% of those that voted chose Option B after second preferences. That is true, but what about those that did not use their second preferences?

16,779 people voted in April, but only 8,190 voted for Option B (even after 2nd preferences are counted). That is LESS than half. So actually the majority of those that voted, voted against Option B.

So the States actually voted how the majority of the island did and their move today is entirely consistent with demonstrated public opinion.

Good on them.

This whole process has been a sham ever since the States put politicians on the Electoral Commission.

Let's have a real independent commission of the people followed by a simple yes/ no binding referendum to get this sorted once and for all.


'Good on them?'

Would you be saying that if 55% voted for option A, Sam, and then THAT got voted down?

I think not.


Ah, but he's a "democrat", don't you know, WB- that means that he listens to public opinion when it suits him, but not when it doesn't, because, as a "democrat", he knows better.


Robots, how do you know how Sam's mind works? Do you know him? Are you friends with him? Does he confide in you his political views?

If the answer is no, then what on Earth are you doing making such an ignorant comment about a stranger?

What is wrong with you?


If you look on all of the material which he self-promotes, he describes himself as a "democrat". He then seeks to deride the democratic result of the referendum.

It might be a little more illuminating if you were to ask yourself what is wrong with you- clearly you have a difficulty reading and comprehending written material.


Mark how do you know how Sam’s mind works? Do you know him? Are you friends with him? Does he confide in you his political views?

If the answer is no, then what on Earth are you doing making such an ignorant comment about comments posted by others?

What is wrong with you?


How do we know, you ask Mark.....

Well, the post gives some clue as to the thought process of the person concerned. Then there are the various other posts by the same person both here and elsewhere. There is also the antics at hustings, public meetings etc.

So, in conclusion, I would politely suggest that a view can reasonably be formed on a fairly polarised body of evidence.

One would further politely suggest that there is nothing wrong with looking at such evidence and coming to an opinion. If one were to be slightly less polite, one could, in fact, ask what is wrong with you, but such a fatuous and altogether empty rhetorical question adds nothing to a mature debate, as you will now recognise, we hope.

Play it again....

He doesn't need to confide his political views- he broadcasts them at every opportunity!


What a ridiculous comment, what about those that voted option B first and didn't put a second choice? Your assumption is ignorant, I guess in your world that doesn't count as it doesn't support your view. Saying that the majority voted against option b is utter rubbish. Pretty sure I didn't see a "vote against option B" option

28 members completely ignored what the public who bothered to vote wanted and should resign as they are a complete bunch of fools and I am disgusted in them.


You can say that it's utter rubbish as much as you like, but the facts are the facts. 16,779 voted, only 8,190 voted for Option B. That isn't a majority.

Comments like yours make these sorts of forums laughable. Someone contributes an indisputable fact, but because it doesn't fit in with your pre-conceived view, you slam them.

The majority of people that voted, voted against Option B. That is just a fact. The States voted in line with the public.


Facts are facts: 54.9% voted for Option B! :)

Marett Court

Of course, if Option A had polled the same 54.9%, your approach would have been completely different, wouldn't it Sam? :)


The problem you have is that Option A was not an unfair system and so wouldn't be subject to the same arguments as Option B was.

Option B wasn't compliant with the Venice Commission and was acknowledged by everyone to be less representative and democratic than what we currently have. It left some parts of the island over-represented and others under-represented. None of that could be said about Option A, so the argument against it would be much weaker than the argument against Option B was yesterday.

But had Option A passed by a tiny margin, then yes, there would be a good case for amending it to address some concerns of those who opposed it. But those amendments couldn't be allowed to turn it into an unfair system.

Fairness is fundamental, and Option B just wasn't a fair system.


Neither was option A.

St Helier, for example, would have had 14 dedicated deputies in electoral boundaries which corresponded with parish boundaries-every other parish would have had to share 7 deputies with up to three other parishes.

Not surprisingly, the people voted to reject it.


No, the problem with some seems to be that they cannot respect the results of a referendum. If Option A had succeeded, we would never have heard the end of it from the Option A supporters. Because another Option is selected, we then hear the sound of their jack-boots!


I don't think that there is any problem Mark except the problem which comes from Option A not being a fair system.

You could say, therefore The problem you have is that Option B (or indeed C) was not an unfair system and so wouldn’t be subject to the same arguments as Option A was.

The Venice Commission argument is a nonsense.


But option B did not poll 54.9%.

less than half of the people who voted, voted for B, so learn maths.


Read the results. Option B polled 54.9%. Learn not to be in denial.


Under the rules of the referendum, Option B polled 54.9% of the votes. That is a matter of public record so learn maths.


I read the results, 16,779 voted, only 8,190 voted for Option B.

Option B clearly did not 54.9%.

Denial? nope, just basic maths.

Under the rules of the referendum, Option B polled under 50% of the votes. This is a matter of public record.

What you are looking at, and what the press incorrectly state, is the percentage of votes for B from only Option A and B votes. There is no rule in the referendum to ignore votes, there is no rule to forget inconvenient results, there is only interpretation.

Option B got less than 50% of the votes, that is fact. It is a lie to say otherwise.

I Pasdenom

16,624 voters voted

The combined total of people voting both 1st & 2nd choices is as follows.

Option A: 6,707 Approx. 20% of votes

Option B: 8,190 Approx. 25% of votes

Option C: 13,385 Approx. 40% of votes

The States have basically voted with 'C', the option that received the greatest number of votes.

Typical sheep, following the majority view!


Option B polled 54.9%. That is a matter of public record.


Well done, Simon, You have read a number without understanding what it means.

There is no public record that states Option B polled 54.9%.

There is a public record that shows 8,190 votes for B.

There is a public record that shows 16,779 votes in total.

There is now a record on the internet that shows you do not understand how to work out percentages from two numbers.



Well done indeed. As a matter of public record, we see that 54.9% voted for Option B.

Lord Haw Haw

Well ,there's a surprise !

The Thinker

What a waste of time and money. But saying that I have to agree with the States decision today. The three options were all totally flawed. As such it is better to stay where we are and wait for some new proposals.

Waste of Publics time

What a waste of the publics time this is!

Why do this exersice if it"was never legally-binding"Jersey is not a democracy i am afraid I thought the occupation had ended?????

Lloyd George

Bailhache and the Connetables first of all loaded the electoral commission. They then moved heaven and earth to produce a referendum which would not have been out of place in a one party state banana republic. This so called referendum was purely designed to keep the Connetables in the assembly

I feel sorry for the outside independent guys who were duped into sitting on this farce of a commission.

We went through this years ago and the recommendations of Clothier should have been adopted. They were in part, re-organisation of the public service structure and doing away with committee government. The only thing not adopted was the re-organisation of the pig trough jamboree we call a parliament, governed by so called "independents", their noses firmly in the money and status trough, trousering 48k per year for running a glorified town council.


This demonstrates once and for all that 28 members of the States will not listen to the people. I suggest folk note their names and vote against them next time if they have the nerve to ever stand again:-

Contre (Against)

Senator Alan Breckon

Senator Sarah Craig Ferguson

Senator Bryan Ian Le Marquand

Senator Francis du Heaume Le Gresley, M.B.E.

Senator Lyndon John Farnham

Connétable Philip John Rondel

Deputy Robert Charles Duhamel

Deputy Roy George Le Hérissier

Deputy Judith Ann Martin

Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern

Deputy James Gordon Reed

Deputy Carolyn Fiona Labey

Deputy Jacqueline Ann Hilton

Deputy John Alexander Nicholas Le Fondré

Deputy Anne Enid Pryke

Deputy Shona Pitman

Deputy Kevin Charles Lewis

Deputy Montfort Tadier

Deputy Trevor Mark Pitman

Deputy Tracey Anne Vallois

Deputy Michael Roderick Higgins

Deputy Andrew Kenneth Francis Green M.B.E.

Deputy Jeremy Martin Maçon

Deputy Gerard Clifford Lemmens Baudains

Deputy Patrick John Dennis Ryan

Deputy John Hilary Young

Deputy John Michael Le Bailly

Deputy Richard John Rondel


All noted, and no crosses.

Though I am told a few will not be standing again anyway.


Give over this is all about the politicians self interests...the ones with insecure deputies seats have all voted against...what an ABSOLUTE JOKE...back to self interests and the dark ages..

Do you think the landed gentry should be offered Compulsary seats and the vote taken away from women? Oliver Cromwell was never welcome here and it hasn't changed (true or maybe I am going too far?).

Davey West

JamesW thank you so much for putting up the States members names who decided that the real choices, ABC were not actually choices at all, just a stitch up or worse.

The politicians named above stopped the farce and should be commended or even praised.

Any reasonably intelligent person could see conflict on two levels. Politicians reporting on their own future and structure of their environment, and an electoral committee heavily staffed with pro Constable members, and one open minded doctor who obviously lost any vote.

It is the 21 members and Constable Len Norman who abstained, that should be kicked out at the next election without fail.

Islanders will take a very dim view of these 21 "B" supporters, who forgot the meaning of words like integrity, democracy and did not listen to the people, just tried to bully them into ridiculous, odd confusing options, as proved by the endless negatives on this blog and other local blogs.



I voted for Option B so I find this Davey West Post highly offensive.

These people are cowards because they knew their jobs were on the line after the public had made their choice. Thats the reality of it all.


Shows how little this bunch think of what the public wanted. We all had the right to vote, whether we chose to or not, therefore the voice of the people should be heard and once again it has not. Get the lot of them out!

The pope

Absolutely no surprise that the usual suspects are named here. the ones who wouldn't have a hope of being elected in a limited seating election.


On reflection it is an interesting mix, is it not. There are some senators who want to keep their seats, but quite a few have accepted the referendum. There are here mainly largely urban and semi-urban deputies, who do not want a reduction in seats. I am also interested in Tadier and Young in St Brelade; they must reckon that they will not get with the proposed boundaries. The rural deputies, who are equally vulnerable to reductions in seats, have gone with the referendum result rather than self interest. Interesting, is it not?


Sam at 12

So what percentage of the electorate voted your left wing Pitmans in ? What percentage of the electorate voted Tadier in ?

Nobody will bother to vote in a referendum again. Just because you didnt like the peoples vote did not mean it was not democratic.


So there you have it people.

Don't waste your time voting in referendums, don't waste your time attending Hustings or Parish Hall Meetings and don't waste your time ever taking a Manifesto from a person who says 'he or she listens' as gospel ever again!


What if Option A had topped the referendum vote? Would it have been overturned by the turkeys? Certainly not.


well.....there will never be another referendum held in Jersey as NO member of the public will turn out to vote after this farce......

Bandiera Rossa

I was against politicians being involved on the commission.

I could not understand why 42 members was chosen.

Neverthless I felt obliged to vote and voted for option A

I had to respect that option B won - yet it now seems that in actual fact option C has won, even though it came third in a three horse race !

I have long argued in the pub and more importantly with my family, that everyone should vote. I have persuaded one of my family to vote, even though that person has voted contrary to how I have voted.

I`m tired of it and finally have realised that it is futile. I shall not vote again - this is not democracy. Government of the people, by the people, for the people it is not - it is simply government of the people.

Adios Companeros

Jerry Gosselin

Bandiera Rossa,

Your comments unwittingly justify the decision of the States to ignore the referendum result: you say you could not understand why the 42 members option was chosen, yet you "felt obliged" to vote for it anyway. That says it all. I know of many vocal option A supporters who also had reservations about a 42-member house but still tried to persuade their fellow citizens to vote for it nevertheless, when the only sensible and responsible action would have been to boycott the referendum.

Had the States voted the other way yesterday, future generations would also be left asking why, after a lifetime without any reform, the States suddenly and inexplicably ditched the popular islandwide mandate AND the parish constituency deputies seats, whilst simultaneously increasing the strength of the executive beyond dangerous levels by getting rid of so many States Members seats. As it turns out, they will thankfully only have to ask themselves why our generation wasted so much time and money seriously arguing over such flawed proposals. History will surely not look kindly on the supporters of options A and B- and hopefully history is all that they can claim to be a part of from this day forth.

Bandiera Rossa

Thank you for your interpretation, which would seem to justify your conclusions.

On reading my comments again I can see that they are open to different interpretations and apologise for my lack of clarity. However I should have added that I was happy to vote for the option removing the Constables from the Assembly, as opposed to boycotting the referendum.

Adios Companeros

siobhan gallichan

Good. After Baillache did his best to rig things in his favour, the States actually tell him where to shove it.

As Sam said, only a tiny amount of people wanted option B. Now there is a chance to get proper, democratic reform.

Once last point. Option B was not complient with Human Rights legislation and would have been struck down anyway... The States just saved Jersey a lot of money.


What cobblers.

Philip Bailhache topped the poll with a Manifesto concerning Reform and the Option B notion claiming to not be Human Rights Complaint is an urban myth. Stop taking in Blogs and join the real world.


And in that 'real' world can we send Baillache back to Barbados for an official refund,as thousands of our Tax quids was squandered on this,five star of course and it has all ended in a crap fight.The Knights of Impossingworth strike again..and we my fellow islanders have sucked it up again also.


What on earth are you talking about?


Well said siobhan, that's the most sensible comment posted so far! Glad not all people are blind sheep being herded into the pen!


Hardly. Not only did Bailhache not "hijack" anything, he also topped the poll in the elections- islandwide as well, not like the lefties who get in on a few votes. Those who call themselves "democrats" seem to forget this electoral achievement :)


The comment about HR legislation is unproven and, frankly, ridiculous. This was trotted out in the pre-vote discussions and carried no weight then, nor now. There were better arguments on both sides - this one was nonsensical.

But hey, you bought it.

And reform is now, for all intents and purposes, dead in the water. It took ten years to get this far. So senators and constables, and deputies with a couple of hundred votes, will live on in peace. And the proportion of voters who wanted that is much smaller.

siobhan gallichan

The point is, it was uncertain enough to be challenged in Europe. And likely it would have lost.

Bill, the original idea for the committee looking into reform was for it to be completly independent of politicians. Bailache made sure that didn't happen. He rigged the deck.

Oh, and Daren, the blogs have a tendency to print fact - with hard evidence as support. That's why I read them.. Unlike other forms of media...


I would be extremely surprised if a challenge in the European Court of Human Rights would have succeeded.

I would be equally surprised if your comment was made with any proper knowledge or understanding of what you write.


Pat - she's making it up.

siobhan gallichan

No, I'm not. I've looked into it. It's about fair representation which Option B didn't provide for in certain districts


Really? Where is your evidence, legal authority etc?


What a bunch of idiots we have running this island...take note of those that voted this out and for heaven sake let's get them voted out everyone of them just wondered if our deputy in trinity was afraid to face an election lol


As it stands, you can't vote them out unless you are in their tiny parishional electoral districts.The majority of voters have no say in this fiasco, which gives amateur local councillors the real power.

Ben Shenton

The referendum sent out a clear message - over 80% of those that voted wanted reform. The States decision to implement the least popular option is disappointing but, sadly, not that surprising. Today the States supported both Option C and themselves. In effect they killed off both reform and the use of the referendum process to gauge public opinion. In the process they maintained a fat States Assembly. It is little wonder that the public show such apathy in the current political process. Both Option A and Option B would have brought meaningful change and improvement. Option B would have revitalised the role of the Constable and made the Island more dynamic at both an Island and Parish level.

Sad day for democracy

Well said sir, well said.

Not So

The hole thing was hijacked to give the result that a few required, The majority they demonstrated their disgust by not voting.

Now possibly we will get a commission that will be truly independent with a binding outcome.

Who knows the hole thing may well be taken out of the States hands in the coming weeks even the UK must be getting very worried with what is being revealed in the true press of this Island not this sham of a news paper.

local lady

Well no wonder the public don't vote, our voices are just never heard. I have voted in every election possible but was hesitant about the referendum. My husband persuaded me thinking voices would be heard this time but low and behold they haven't! This is one local lady who won't bother voting anymore as people in the states just look out for themselves and not the public.


Complete arses all of them we knew they would throw it out...I'll no longer waste my time in voting again


Voting in this referendum was a complete waste of time and shame on those States Members who chose to ignore the Public's vote, but your pay back will come soon enough at the next elections.


Will Sir Philip now repay the tax payers money spent on his carribean jolly?

the wanted

No he won't, you are a serf and he does not listen to the likes of you.

How dare you even address the puppetmaster in such a way?

Hang your head until his eminence has left the vicinity.

One of the 2000 - gis a job

Alternatively James, it could be argued that those in your list recognised that the original States decision was for an independent electoral commission, which then got taken over by the establishment in order to frame the referendum question in two lousy choices which very few people agreed with - a complicated double-chance for them to get their own way and keep the constables. At least 4 issues were condensed into these 2 choices with both option having 3 of them in common!

The public would not be fooled, we knew that the result wouldn't be binding, so the turnout was correspondingly low and in the end it was only right that the whole fiasco of a result should be ignored. Perhaps next time it might be done right!


Wouldn't you be better served applying for jobs at 10.05 on a weekday rather than commenting on news stories?

Just a thought!

Gis a break

I think the site meant to say 22.05 UTC. Goodness knows why we need am and pm in cyber life.

Nevertheless, in your haste to knock poor old gis a job, have you considered that s/he might have got up even earlier than you and returned from another fruitless search?

Just off to look for a Sunday job.


A disgusting sham of an Island, run by self centered greedy morons.

Not one of these pathetic ' politicians ' has the right to Govern or indeed fit to Govern.

How much did this referendum cost us the Tax Payer, and can we expect a rebate?

What's the point of asking the opinion of the good people of Jersey, who take their time to travel and vote, and then simply ignore the result because it doesn't suit?

Isn't this process a cornerstone of Democracy? Well I guess we all have our answer now . . .



The referendum was a shame in the first place!

I'm glad that States Members saw through this.

I'll be writing to thank my Deputies for voting against this!


And write also to the 17,000 who went out of their way to vote?

17,000 who are now being dismissed by some contributors as a "tiny" proportion.

siobhan gallichan

Jim, 17000 IS a tiny proportion of the populace. Hardly a mandate in any form.


Well, that 17,000 can, it seems, be ignored by the "democrats", who masqueraded under that description when they tirelessly promoted Option A.

When Option A did not succeed, they shifted from being "democrats" to being "we know better than those who voted".

So, in conclusion, the 17,000 who voted will be noted by proper democrats, but will be dismissed by "we know better" despots who have allowed their "democrats" mask to fall when they threw their toys out of the Option A pram.


Tiny? Is that the word you've all agreed to use?

So you don't owe 17,000 people any sort of apology then?

Or to any entry level maths student or statistician who will tell you, teach you, that out of our voting population, the turnout was massively, hugely statistically significant? Are you re-writing the text book on stats?

The standard deviation will be - wait for it - tiny, so we can, with near certainty and even with a narrow majority, conclude that the vote of the 17,000 will reflect, almost exactly, the vote of the entire population, if they could be bothered that is.

What I have said isn't mere opinion by the way, it is statistical fact. Ask a mathematician nearby.

siobhan gallichan

I'll say again. It's not a mandate.


You can say it as much as you like! It represents the result of a referendum, whether you like to admit it or not.

Say it again

I said, I said, 17,000 votes is a fair number. Given the number who actually voted, it is fairly convincing.

Pip Clement

In the parish where I live our two herbs have never voted for anything in their manifestos.

And they have voted against States' reform every time.

I am not going to register to vote next time, it is pointless.


I voted in the referendum, I was aware that the result would not be binding, I voted option B, reluctantly, as I did not really like any of the options, it follows I am delighted that it is back to the drawing board!


Regardless of implications Julia? For many elections the politicians have bemoaned voter apathy. And yet, even though the real impact on people's lives of this particular referendum in the short to medium terms is pretty negligible, 17,000 of us read the papers articles of all three cases, attended a husting,discussed with family over the tea table and went out of our way to vote. Do you not feel at least a little downcast that given that this is how those who do engage are treated, the prospects for the political system are grim? Whether we think the most democtratic system is A, B or C, or D, E or F, it won't matter if right minded people simply give up on the political system altogether. And we would be forgiven for doing so.


This is an absolute disgrace, and plainly demonstrates that there is no democracy here in Jersey and more depressing is the fact that we who had hope are as many others,are getting it blatantly knocked out of us and am beginning to agree with the comments "What is the point in voting, it is a waste of time"!!

"Nothing will change" The whole thing is corrupt and led by vested interest" I railed against such attitude but now have egg on my face. I voted for option A, but was prepared to accept whatever option the people of Jersey wanted, how foolish of me.

I spent 24 years of my life in the RAF standing by against the threat of Communism and to maintain our Democratic way of life, I get the feeling "Was it wasted?"


No John, i'm sure your 24 years in the RAF were not wasted, as Jersey is not communist. Sensationalist comments like yours don't help the situation. I salute Senator Bailhache for trying to reform the States, however next time any referendum must be legally binding. The next referendum should have one simple question 'Do you want Constables in the States' with a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer and then we can move on to consider the composition of the States.


What people wanted was the Constables and their consistent bloc voting removed.....spare us any protestations on this go and look at the record on Hansard .....they have had their day and like Baillache should go....guarantee he would never gain the publics confidence again....along with Ian Le Marquand....time they went.


The Constables are the lynch pin of the Honorary System, which is by its very nature is unpaid. Can someone confirm wether these Constables are paid the same salaries and expenses as the other States Members? If they are, surely there is more than a little conflict here, and trying to do two quite different jobs, namely looking after their parish, and dealing with Island issues.


There is no conflict. The policing powers were relinquished by the constables.

The "two jobs" as you see it is really the single job of representing the parish and its people and in doing so within the states. The parish is an island issue, so the grass roots representation that the constables continue to provide is a cornerstone of democracy for the island.

I hope that this helps.


Just look what happened when Constable Jackson of St.Brelade tried to be a minister at was carnage and the Parish work suffered to the extent that the Parish rejected him and he was out....the constables should look after the Parish that voted them to be constable and NOT be allowed to vote in the is 2 different jobs...may have worked when Jersey was a tiny community,but village politics are now too small.Constables OUT.


No, it is not two jobs. You have seized on a single example of a constable being a minister and your confusion seems to stem from this.

You put a well worn single example which, as such, rather shows that such a problem, if indeed it is a problem, tends to be the exception rather than the norm.

The constable's position is to look after the parish and in order to do so, it is entirely right and proper that he or she should represent the parish and its people within the states. It is what is known as grass roots democracy.


I disagree. As has been explained to you elsewhere, you cite one rather unusual example in order to bolster what is really a somewhat weak argument.

You go on to effectively contradict yourself by deriding parish democracy yet, at the same time, acknowledging that the problem upon which you place such singular reliance is one which was dealt with by way of grass roots, parish democracy.

Your second point also fails. You state that the constables should look after their respective parish, but you overlook the fact that, in order to do so in any meaningful way, it is essential that they continue to represent the parish and its people within the states.

Your commentaries, poor though they are, might have a little more credence if you were to find a better way of closing; ending with a silly slogan and capitalised letters tends to portray a less than mature outlook.

Real Truthseeker

How on earth do you come up with that logic? You must live in a fantasy world.

The key thing to remember is that what TRUTHSEEKER wants, is not what "... the people..." want.

Of the three options, Option B and C both included Constables to be retained in the States. The combination of these two resulted in well over 50% of the votes in favour of Constables.

So, how on earth do you then arrive at your conclusion?

Fantasy land yet again!


Thanks to these 28 self centred wage grabbers all my time has been wasted. People should not bother with politics in Jersey anymore because they don't give a dam about public opinion.


To all the "Contre":

I voted option A with no alternative.

When option B was accepted, despite it's proponents, I accepted the result knowing that it could pave the way for further reform.

Change happens slowly here or not at all.

Democracy has been subverted, the opinions of the states members were made clear in their campaigning and their votes. The day they cast their vote should have been the last day their opinions counted before the collective made it's decision.

Shame on all of you who ignored the will of a larger number than most of you were voted in by and then say the options were undemocratic.

How dare you tell us our votes count for nothing.

spiritual warrior

Time for a revolution.! And we think we're different from the Middle East.!!

Angry Dave

I am ashamed to be Jersey when I see us being run by a dictatorship like this.

The result was clear, the public had said what they wanted and self vestige interests wrecked that. We need UK intervention because this is not a democracy but a fantasy one made up of liars.

Vladimir Putin

I am dead jealous. Back home, I can't even get away with this anymore .

I am please to announced that the Pussy Riots will be headlining Jersey Live this year.

Considering the enormity if the situation, they might stay for a while....

Jersey you made my day!!!


Jersey Democracy RIP.

The self centred vestige interests of backbenchers and senators run this Island, not the people.


I won't vote for members who wanted to give several million quid to the NT. I won't vote for members who have overturned the result of a process which almost 17,000 people subscribed to (even though I voted for option C). Both reasons on principle.

Hell, is there anyone left for me to vote for?!


The states never had any intension of listining to the public because they dont care what we think. We all stand more chance of winning the lottery rather than the states changing a habit of a lifetime. Question why should we now vote for states members when they dont listen to anything their voters say!!!!! States do what they want when it suits them thats why the islands in such a mess.

Gino Risoli

What most seem to miss is that any system of government could work but only if the system is totally open and transparent. But this change can only come from the electors. So it is chicken and egg, we have a lack of accountability because of voter apathy, we have apathy because of a lack of accountability. Real change can only be instigated from outside of government, I.e the voter.

Pip Clement

Only twelve and a half years on from Clothier and the States are still not reformed.

The depressing thing is that thousands of hours of work and hundreds of thousands of pounds have been wasted doing nothing.

Baz Du Mont

John you didn't waste your time protecting our democracy and freedom, thank you very much for your efforts.

The real definition of democracy is - can the people change their government if enough of them want to? In that case, yes we do have democracy. It's just that not enough islanders feel the need for a change. But in theory we could rise up, field 51 new candidates and all vote for them. If we wanted to!

Why don't we do it

But alas the system will not allow such a thing hence the rigging to block a open referendum of the public on the form of the new house.

Hijacked by those with most to lose it started with a dream of no political influence never could that be allowed, We may have chosen to elect 51 good men and women on a island wide mandate.

The only way true change will happen is when the dirt is so thick that even the blind will see Jersey for what it truly is.

I am sad I did vote but the outcome could have never given me the option I chose in a way the blocking may well be seen in the long term as the saviour of democracy in this island.


Congratulations on uniting the Island once again! You have all totally lost touch with the real world and are unaware of the people who live outside of your States bubble.Roll on the next elections.

Simple Sid

Don't think anyone is suprised, Roll on the revolution.

Mrs Moo

Saw on last night's news that Mr Bailhache is quoted as saying the islanders were asked their opinion. Actually, I think not. We were given three options and asked for our preference. What if your preference was for none of them?

I am not alone (I believe) in wanting island-wide voting for ALL elected politicians. Parochial representation is not relevant in an island of this size where the majority travel beyond the boundaries of our residential parish on a regular (probably daily) basis. Furthermore, most political decision-making affects the entire island. For example, regarding health issues, we only have one hospital and one social security system. Therefore health policies are relevant for every islander, unless there will be different policies dependant on the parish you live in.

Regarding the low turn-out, I won't vote for an option I don't agree with. My vote may tip the balance for it to be adopted. I won't take that risk. If there had been an option D - 'None of the Above'. I would have voted. In anticipation of responses, spoiling your paper is also not an option as there is no differentiation between accidentally spoilt (crosses instead of ticks or vice versa) and deliberately spoiling your paper.

David Rotherham

The mistake was months ago, when they should never allowed Option B into the ballot in the first place. Having weakly let Sir Phil hustle them then, they were always facing the risk, which came to pass, of being forked with the dilemma of breaching democratic principles, either in the substance of the reform, or the manner of its rejection.

This was a bad day for all of them, the 21 who wanted to make matters worse, the 28 who ignored a fair result in the referendum, and the 1 who would not make any kind of stand either way.


For once, the Government has actually correctly represented the people.

Just like the popularity vote (or referendum to some people), less than half voted to keep option B.

The remaining votes, more than half, didn't vote for option B.

Not only truly representing the people, but for once, a correct choice in the states!


The other way of looking at it would be that the states is ignoring the result of referendum. Under the rules of that referendum, just under 55% voted for Option B, although I was not among that majority.


Unfortunately, Sue, this bit of rubbish has been perpetuated and now people quote the 55% without actually understanding it. Its a lie. Option B did not get 55% of the votes.

Under the rules of the referendum, all votes are counted, all 16,779.

For a winner to be determined, One option is required to receive 50% of the votes.

If one option did not receive 50% of the votes, then the option with the least votes would be reviewed and any second choices would be added to the votes of the other two options.

Option C got the least votes, so votes for Option C were reviewed, and any second choices were added to option A and B.

This resulted in 8,190 votes for Option B.

8,190 from 16,779 is not 55%.

And yet people keep trying to claim it is.

If you ignore votes that were not for Option A or B (something that is not part of the referendum rules) you would get the result that B got 55% of A and B votes only. But, again, to do this was not under the rules of that referendum.

To make it clear, B could *only* get 55% of the votes if you start ignoring the rules of the referendum.


No, not rubbish. Under the rules of the referendum, Option B polled 54.9%. The only rubbish which is perpetuated is the one which you repeat.

Two make it clear

On the contrary; the 54.9% of votes recorded for Option B was entirely within the rules of the referendum- the only people who would like to ignore those rules are the ones whose Option did not succeed; I speak of Option A here.


Under what rules, Paul?

What rules said it is acceptable to ignore votes?.

What rules said it is acceptable to "adjust" numbers?

These "rules" certainly were not mentioned in the Referendum procedure. Perhaps you should have another look?

16,779 votes, 8,190 votes for B. This is not 55% of the votes.

Therefore under the rules of the referendum, Option B got (8190 divided by 16779, Use a calculator if you need) Less than half of the votes.

Do you people really not understand such basic maths?

Can any of you actually show how you got the absurd result of 55% from?


The rules of the referendum enabled a second vote to be taken into account. Clearly, you were not aware of those rule, but you will nowbe so aware after having read this post.

Under the rules of the referendum, a result of 54.9% was recorded for Option B.

I trust that this clarifies matters for you.


Paul, Yes, Clearly the rules of the referendum enabled a second vote to be taken into account.

With this rule, option B got 8190 votes (combined first and second votes where C was the first.)

From a total of 16779 votes, 8190 is clearly less than half.

So, again, How do you calculate the 54.9% of votes for option B?

Clearly under the rule you quoted, this is in error.


Not at all. Under the rules of the referendum, Option B polled 54.9%.

Joe Mike

It's a matter of public record that Option B garnered 54.9% of the votes.

Option A 6,581 39.59 6,707 45.02%

Option B 6,804 40.93 8,190 54.98%

Option C 3,239 19.48


Joe Mike, according to your figures

Option A 6,581 39.59 6,707 45.02%

Option B 6,804 40.93 8,190 54.98%

Option C 3,239 19.48

Now in your first column you have a total of 16624.

In your second column under B you have 8190.

Half (50%) of 16624 = 8312. There are no two ways about it the result for B was not a resounding majority.

The second choice thing was a complete joke anyway in my opinion and should never have been allowed. There is only one person that should shoulder the responsibility for this shambles and that is Philip Baillache. But I think he knew full well what he was playing at. He didnt get his first option but he at least got his second. If option A had won the same thing would have happened, it would have been rejected so dont feel too hard done by it just means you got to experience it first hand instead of the option A supporters.

Joe Mike

It’s a matter of public record that Option B garnered 54.9% of the votes. In tabulated format, the results were as follows:

Option A 6,581 39.59 6,707 45.02%

Option B 6,804 40.93 8,190 54.98%

Option C 3,239 19.48


Joe Mike, Your figures are incorrect. You are missing some results from your table.


Could you tell us which figures are missing? The table is the same one as the one which was published with the results, so it looks correct and complete to me.


Rea, isn't it obvious?

As Luap pointed out, 16779 voters went to the polls. None of those results add up to this amount, therefore the results are clearly wrong.

If you need help to understand, I would suggest spending some time in primary school,


No, it isn't obvious at all. Your assertion is incorrect in fact.

Under the rules of the referendum, 54.9% went to Option B. I understood the table perfectly well, as I imagine would most people with an iq over 50.


Bea, Yes, Clearly the rules of the referendum enabled a second vote to be taken into account.

With this rule, option B got 54.98% of the vote.

Clearly under the rule you quoted, you are in error in your comment. Read the table and perhaps do some simple schooling. Reception.


Again, As I said, 16779 voters went to the polls.

Under the rules of the referendum, with the transferable votes included, 8,190 votes were Option B. This is clearly less than half the total votes, so clearly the table is incorrect.

Even a five year old can understand that less than half is not the same as more than half.


Under the rules of the referendum, 54.9% went to Option B.

Bea, Yes, Clearly the rules of the referendum enabled a second vote to be taken into account.

Clearly under the rule you quoted, you are in error in your comment. Read the table and perhaps do some simple schooling. Reception.


The other way of looking at the matter would be that the states is ignoring the result of referendum. Under the rules of that referendum, just under 55% voted for Option B, although I was not among that majority.


So, Berty, Given the actual numbers, or *evidence* as some people would call it, you still don't understand.

Simple question.

Is 8190 votes from 16779 total votes more than half?

Yes or No.

Quite simply, Under the rules of that referendum, less than half of those who voted, voted for Option B


Under the rules of the referendum, 54.9% went to Option B.

We know that the rules of the referendum enabled a second vote to be taken into account.

Clearly under the rule you quoted, you are in error in your comment. Read the table and perhaps do some simple schooling. Primary.

Joe Mike

It’s a matter of public record that Option B garnered 54.9% of the votes. A table was published which set out the results as follows:

Option A 6,581 39.59 6,707 45.02%

Option B 6,804 40.93 8,190 54.98%

Option C 3,239 19.48


There is no public record that states Option B garnered 54.9% of the votes, simply because that is not true. 8190 votes from 16779 total votes is only 48.8%

Here is the table, corrected to show the correct results.

Option A 6,581 39.2% 6,707 40.0%

Option B 6,804 40.6% 8,190 48.8%

Option C 3,239 19.3%

No option 155 0.9% 1,882 11.2%

Total 16,779 16,779

Mike Joey

I disagree.

It’s a matter of public record that Option B garnered 54.9% of the votes.

A table was published which set out the results as follows:

Option A 6,581 39.59 6,707 45.02%

Option B 6,804 40.93 8,190 54.98%

Option C 3,239 19.48

Marett Court

The rules of the referendum enables the second vote to be taken into count. Clearly, some ignorant were not aware of those rule, but will now be aware unless something wrong with them.

Under the rules of the referendum, a result of 54.9% was recorded for Option B.

Public Record (matter of)

Matter of public record:

With Option C's ballot papers re-distributed:

45.02% voted for Option A

54.98% voted for Option B


On the contrary; the 54.9% of votes recorded for Option B was entirely within the rules of the referendum, that much is clear.

Pip Clement

Brain dead twaddle from our failure of a government;

Bailhache, Gorst, le Marquand et al are hiding under the government duvet!


Absolutely agree Baillache has to stand down,he squandered money blithely swanning off on jollies to the Caribean...supposedly fact finding with his mates....has he no e mail..and why oh why would anyone think Barbados knows more that us it is a virtually lawless tourist muggers paradise,Baillache must go he wanted HIS agenda...and we have had enough of his elitist dictatorial boys club tosh.Just go.

the wanted

Change in Jersey is simply not wanted by our leaders.

Hundreds of thousands were paid for the Clothier report and we implemented the bare minimum, just enough to appease a small portion of the public. Now they decide that those who voted in this referendum are plebs who's opinions are worthless. If that isn't contempt I would like to know what it is.

The government that we have are ruining this place for future generations - too many old farts with vested interests who are more bothered feathering their own nests than representing the electorate.

I would like to see a vote of no confidence in this sorry shower of sh*t.


Now that it's done...a new reform committee will be headed by Macon,I hope he has the balls and savvy to learn from this hideous debacle...which ALL states members allowed and should have stopped Baillache in his tracks from hijacking the thing the resultant mess is egg on his face and he should fall on his sword this time and go.So Jeremy No Constables on this committee ...or you are doomed.

Real Truthseeker

Of course he has to have Constables on the committee. This isn't some Stalinist jurisdiction, he needs to ensure he gets the views of all, not ignore critical members of our States.

Davey West

It should have been completely as ex Deputy Wimberly's proposition to be independent,as it turned out it was completely conflicted with two out of the three options to keep the Constables in with a Constable and a Constables son Deputy Baker on the commission.

Sadly the jealous shadow of Truthseeker calling himself real truthseeker again fails yet again to grasp the bigger picture.



I can't see any conflict. You might as well say that there should have been no senators or no deputies on the panel.

I don't see either that "Real Truthseeker" has anything to be jealous of, intellectually speaking! :)


Sim, what deputy and what senators were on the panel? Or were you being sarcastic?


Not at all. When one speaks of a possible conflict, one must have in mind all categories of member if one is to raise the argument properly.

Geeky Blogger

I listened to the whole debacle and you could tell that some Deputies were simply worried about more competition to keep their jobs so were making any feeble excuse to ignore the Island's decision. These backbenchers do not care about the results of any referendum, they only want to keep their salaries and nothing else. Just remember that if they ever stand again.


The referendum appeared to be,should one use the word fixed? to keep Constables in the States.

The only truly democratic alternative is everybody elected on an island wide vote.


I don't see how the referendum could have been fixed as you carefully suggest.

One of the Options provided for the constables to not have a seat within the house. Not only was that Option rejected, but the countervailing public opinion as reflected in the votes cast for the two remaining options to retain the constables seems pretty clear.

It is difficult to see how such a result could have been fixed. Those who have a difficulty with the position of the constables will doubtless continue to rely upon this decidedly weak ground of argument in the absence of more cogent material.

Get Real

One quick point to consider for those of you currently complaining about the States rejection of the referendum.

From the beginning it was stated the referendum would NOT be legally binding.

So you voted in a referendum which was not legally binding, but you now want to bitch and moan in disgust because the final result has not been treated as legally binding?

You see the problem there?


Looks like we are stuck with the same malaise that infects all in the States and some of its ministers.Vote to overturn referendums and ignore the laws passed as you see fit. Crowcroft resigned and now the chairman is Macon,who voted against accepting the wishes of the electorate.What next?

Pete, St Brelade

The fact of the matter is that the Assembly chose to have their own vote on this issue when the whole idea of a referendum was to take it out of their hands and leave it to the people. Compromises between A and B were to be tabled but we never got that far. Apart from numerous pro-A campaigners being pleased with this trashing of democracy I only hear angry people at the way this was voted out, and the 28 who did this will have a lot of explaining to do if they dare to stand again in 2014.

Baz Du Mont

The referendum was just an opinion poll, we knew that from the start. Our democratic system is all about voting for politicians who know better than the mob (and the polls to elect them had a higher turnout than the referendum did), and so it works out as well as it usually does that they had the final say. If you don't like it, start a campaign to change that!