John Le Maistre elected Constable of Grouville

Former Jersey Farmers Union president John Le Maistre has been elected as the new Constable of Grouville.

John Le Maistre has been elected Constable of Grouville
John Le Maistre has been elected Constable of Grouville

Former Jersey Farmers Union president John Le Maistre has been elected as the new Constable of Grouville.

He beat Grouville Chef de Police Charles Dix by 1,001 votes to 442. The result was announced at the Parish Hall at 8.55 pm this evening.

Mr Le Maistre (54), who was born and brought up in the parish and is married with four children and six grandchildren, will be sworn in by the Royal Court on Friday.

He will complete the term of office of the late Dan Murphy, who died in July.

• See Thursday's JEP for full report and pictures

Comments for: "John Le Maistre elected Constable of Grouville"

Equal representation

So we now have a States Member who can become a Minister and run a substantial department, as the previous Constable of St Brelade did. And his mandate? Around 1% of the population of Jersey. I'm sure he'll make an excellent Constable and make a fine job of running his Parish but he should NOT be a States Member running the Island.

Jerry Gosselin

Shock news from the Establishment v Establishment election: THE ESTABLISHMENT WON!

He'll take his place in the States just in time to help the government vote through swingeing new punishment sanctions on the unemployed and he'll also be voting to get rid of the Grouville Deputy's seat and merge it with neighbouring parishes in a new super constituency. He probably doesn't yet know that he's got to vote for these things but Sir Phil and young Mr Phil will soon put him right! ;-)

Naturally, he won't be voting to abolish his own Constable's seat though!

Sam

If you had been at the Grouville hustings like I was, you would know that John Le Maistre told the audience he does not believe in super-constituencies and believes it should stay Parish based.

He also said that he thought the really small Parishes could do without Deputies and just rely on their Constables.

I hope he sticks to that and votes for PPC's reforms.

Well done John

I have to wonder who is better placed to run the island than someone with their feet planted firmly on the ground, capable of running a parish, in regular contact with people in all walks of life, their eyes open to all the issues affecting everyone? Would you prefer some rich businessman? 'Constable' is a dual role, and we know that when we elect them. I don't see the problem and this obsession with comparing the size of the opinion polls that elect our members - the sample size isn't important past a certain point : statistics!

Mark

"the sample size isn’t important past a certain point : statistics!"

You're right. That certain point is anything below 15%.

But St Mary is over-represented by 60%. That is unfair and goes beyond acceptable limits.

This is the 21st Century. Constituencies have to a similar size otherwise you don't get a representative assembly.

The Thinker

I have no issue whatsoever with the election in the Parish of Grouville -

However the position of Constable is one that many possible aspiring politicians would not wish to seek. Their presence in the Chamber therefore excludes other forms of representation.

You write glowingly of a Constable 'with their feet planted firmly on the ground, capable of running a parish, in regular contact with people in all walks of life'.

What happens if the Constable of your Parish is not any of those things - and yes across the island Constables come in various shapes and sizes and I'm not talking physical appearance.

The reality of the voting system and pattern in Jersey is that once an individual has been elected as a Parish Constable he / she is very rarely challenged and rarer still to be unseated. That is the reality.

And whilst the Constable does represent a tranche of the the electorate within the Parish, that is not the whole picture across the board.

Sadly, very sadly the great Honorary Role of Constable has been significantly altered by the 'states salary' and there are now some members who are there solely for the money and not for any great love of their Parish or their Parishioners.

Bea

Well said.

Individual Constables may be very good at their role, but it is down to the individual.

Robert

Equal representation ~ he has more votes than most St Helier deputies so time you get things in prospective!

Nice try Bob, but no cigar

You conveniently overlook the fact that this was a simple two way fight. One candidate received 1001 votes, the other 442. Each voter had 1 vote.

In St Helier, there are often 6 or more candidates for multiple seats, and multiple votes per voter. This results in a broader distribution of the votes across the candidates.

So, you are not exactly comparing apples with apples are you? I think it is you, sir, who should get things in perspective.

(That's perspective, btw. Not prospective. It's a hard job being in the grammar police, but some of us have to do it!)

Hair cut

St Helier is where all the leftys who wouldn't usually stand a chance try to get in. That is why they are so keen on St Helier and pushing up the number of deputies there. If we're not careful, we'll end up being run by idiots who read too many socialist pamplets and who couldn't organise a p/up in a brewery, let alone earn fifty grand (or even half that) anywhere else.

Mark

Aha! The mask slips!

You don't want St Helier to have it's fair say because you don't like how they vote.

There's a word for that, it's called - fascism.

In the 21st Century, socialists are entitled to an equal vote as the liberals and conservatives. It's this funny little thing called "democracy".

Some of us old right-wingers even believe it's a good idea.

I wouldn't vote for a lefty, but I'm not so dictatorial as you as to think the lefties don't deserve fair representation.

But at least you've proven to anyone that didn't already know, you hate democracy and you hate the people of St Helier. I suspect that is true of most people who don't want St Helier to have it's fair number of Deputies.

Mask

It's not fair representation though- it's the "muppet show" getting into the states by the back door on a handful of votes in St Helier.

Mark

But they don't get in on a handful of votes. Look up the results of the last election.

11 members across the island got in with precisely 0 votes. That's one 5th of our national parliament.

The Deputy of St Mary only got in on just over 200 votes. About a 3rd of the votes the Deputy of St Helier with the lowest number of votes got.

Will you be calling for the abolition of the Deputy seat in St Mary?

I presume not, because your actual problem with St Helier is the fact you don't agree with what their Deputies do. And because you think the people of St Helier are thicker than you, they deserve less representation. That is called Fascism, my dear.

Scrutineer

It is actually not an issue of how 'St Helier' votes, it is more about how the limited number in St Helier who turn out to vote, case their vote! Results are probably biased in St Helier as a result of the low turnout (one of many reasons why I want lots of senators!).

Caz

St Helier has always been the entry point for lefty muppets who either get in unelected or manage to get in on a handful of votes.

Once "elected", the half-baked noise that they make is inversely proportionate to their "democratic" standing.

Kate

Mark is right, some of them in St Helier don't get in on a handful of votes, usually because someone equally hopeless gets one or two more and then gets the seat by the most slender margin.

Eevr wondered why these lefty oddbods never stand for Senator? :)

Mark

Caz and Kate, your comments are hilarious because they are just the exact opposite of the truth.

St Helier is the entry point for some of the most right-wing politicians we've ever had too. Like Maclean, Ozouf, Walker, Le Sueur, Jeune etc. And plenty of lefties get elected outside of St Helier too you know. Tadier and Gary Matthews in St Brelade. Even Daniel Wimberley got elected in St Mary!

So what you're saying is utter nonsense.

As I've said before, those elected in St Helier get elected with far more votes than those in the country Parishes. That's just a numerical fact. Google the 2011 results.

The fact that you persist in saying the opposite is the case is just evidence that you are intent on spreading misinformation for a sinister political purpose.

Vote topper

Yet when Senator Bailhache gets in on a record number of votes, we hear a different tune from the lefties. They don't like democracy then. Surely that is facism?

Caz and Kate

You need to make your mind up, Mark. You alternatively state that the comments are "hilarious" and then "sinister". They can't be both. Which one do you think that it might be?

Ever wondered why the St Helier lefty oddbods never stand for Senator?

Jane

"And plenty of lefties get elected outside of St Helier too you know. "

Good point, Mark. Most of them seem sensible when elected, but only get elected for one term. Gary Matthews was not re-elected, for example. Tadier probably will not be. They pander to the urban aspect of St Brelade. Nick le Cornu stood for constable there once upon a time. I remember his speech at the hustings, togther with some of the heckling that it provoked. Such comedy!

Mark

Jane, how did Daniel Wimberley get elected in St Mary then? He certainly didn't pander to any urban interests there because there isn't any.

The point I'm making is that Jersey politics is filled with variety and that variety doesn't always stick to the stereotypes pedalled by our friends above.

But even if St Helier was a den of crypto-communists just waiting to fly the red flag at the top of Fort Regent, so what? Democracy only works when everyone has an equal say in how their country is run. You don't reserve more voting power for people who vote the "right way".

St Helier has a third of the population of the island and therefore needs a third of the representation. That's just how it has to be and it matters squat what people in the country Parishes think. They have no right to tell St Helier they can't have their fair say.

Jane

Well done. You found the one exception to your flawed theory, although it is not a true exception because Mr Wimberley ran a business in the parish, lived there, was committed to the parish and unusually for those of the left, had a brain.

The rest of them pretend to have a link with St Helier and, as has been said, tend to pander to the urban element. Sometimes, like Gary Matthews in 1994, they even manage to pull it off in the semi urban parishes but, once the parishioners have witnessed their conduct for three years, they don't get in again! :)

Are you going to answer Scrutineer's question at post 12 or is it beyond your capabilities?

PJK

We are already run by idiots!

Bean Abroad

Hear, Hear! Parish appointments should be restricted to dealing with Parish related matters.

CONSTABLES OUT

Hear hear "Equal representation"

Nick

Well he got substantially more votes than any elected Deputy in either St Helier numbers one or two districts at the last election.

Sam

And less than one who did not get elected in St Helier 3/4.

Our system is broken.

Grouville is under-represented.

All States Members should be elected in constituencies of equal size. That is a pretty basic democratic principle.

Flip

Well - Equal representation.. I sort of agree. Very similar to the recent referendum where only 50% of the 30% who voted wanted a change.. Thats errr 15% wanting a change. OK lets ensure that nothing changes unless there is a "substantial" part of the population behind it.

Trouble is here that nothing will ever change. I do agree with you though that a 1% population vote doesn't give a mandate so maybe we need to have "nominations" for ministers and a public vote to see who the population favour. In the same way that the "population" regected a change of the states structure.

Burlington

Come the election next year, we will have 50 States Members who can become a Minister and run a substantial department, as the present Deputy Duhamel does. And his mandate? Around 1% of the population of Jersey.

truthseeker

Same old,same old.let's have these non representative Constables and their anti Democracy bloc voting OUT..Come on Jersey this is the twentieth Century for goodness sake mature, evolve and grow the F! up.

DEPUTIES OUT

He has more democratic legitimacy than the deputies in St Helier who get in with a handful of votes. They usually stand in that parish as well because it is an way for the hopeless cases to get in.

Mark

Hopeless cases like Frank Walker, Terry Le Sueur and Philip Ozouf who call got elected for the first time in St Helier despite not living in the Parish?

St Helier 3/4 has 14,000 people living in it. That means a candidate there has over 3 times as many doors to knock on as a candidate in Grouville.

The idea that they don't have any legitimacy is, frankly, idiotic.

Paul

Absolutely right. The no hopers such as the Pitman's live out of town, pick a poorer area of St Helier to stand in, one that they obviously consider themselves too good to actually live in, and then claim they represent the voters of that area. These guys get in with only a few votes, because people generally can't be bothered to vote given the candidates they have to choose from. And how much contact do the voters have them,are they expected to take a taxi up to peaceful St John's to discuss matters of concern with their "representative".

Mark

And Philip Ozouf, Terry Le Sueur and Frank Walker too! Those hopeless left-wing nutters!

You know Trevor Pitman actually got more votes than 20 of the current sitting States Members. Sorry to interject with a little fact like that. But I don't suppose you'll be calling for the removal of the Constables who more often than not don't get any votes at all when they get into the States?

Join the real world. You look ridiculous.

Paul

Mark,

You mention Trevor, but what about his wife, they are a double act you know. The fact remains they live in the countryside in St John, in Jersey terms far away from those they claim to represent. Although, even if they lived in town I am not sure how much time they would have to deal with the poor constituents given the amount of time they seem to spend in court. Just as well they are on such a good earner from the States to pay all their legal fees.

Finally, for your info, Frank and Terry are not in the States, they retired some time ago. Try to keep up to date with the real world, you're showing yourself up

Mark

Well guess what Paul, despite them living in St John, they still got elected. Trevor has been elected twice and Shona three times. You're just going to have to get over the fact that the people in their constituencies don't particularly care where they live. Andrew Green lives in St Ouen, why aren't you picking on him? That's further away from St Helier than St John is.

Well done for the silly comment at the end. I was pointing out St Helier's strong history of electing some of the most right wing States Members we've ever had. It's quite sad that I have to explain that point.

Phil

They got elected into the safe seat, knowing that they hadn't a hope in St John. They got in because the other candidates were even worse, it was a sort of race to the bottom.

Will they stand for senator? Not a hope!

Kit

The democratic credentials of people like the Pitmans is marginal, those who mention a handful of votes should look at the slender votes that the St Helier lefty clowns gain with thier safe and virtually uncontested seats.

Mark

What on Earth are you talking about?

Seats in St Helier are the most hotly contested of all the islands constituencies.

It's the country Parishes Deputy seats and Constable seats that are uncontested safe seats.

That's a fact. Google the 2011 election results.

Get a grip.

Chris

The safe seats in St Helier attract those who wouldn't normally have a hope of getting in.

Mark

The only safe seats are the Constables seats because they are never contested.

The idea that St Helier seats, which are always contested and which you have to knock on far more doors than any other Parish representative has to are "safe seats" is frankly ludicrous.

It really is a damning indictment of Jersey politics that such ignorant comments like the above are as common as they are.

Frank

Err, yes Mark, yet this feature is about one of the elections that you claim does not exist?

The constable of St Helier was not contested, but we sort of forget that, don't we?

As for the St Helier deputies, they are only contested on the basis that you have a load of no-hopers- one of them has to win, which is why St Helier is always where the oddities go to get an easy seat.

Let some of them stand for senator- we all know what would happen! :)

Mark

Frank, I oppose the Constable of St Helier being in the States too. In fact, so does he! If he wants to be in the States he should stand for Deputy.

Those "no-hopers" get more votes than your beloved country Constables and Deputies.

But go on, keep insulting the people of St Helier and calling them thick because they choose people you don't like. That will make your argument go down extra well there ;)

Crane

Mark says "The only safe seats are the Constables seats because they are never contested."

Errr, what is this news item about, Mark??

It really is a damning indictment of Jersey politics that such ignorant comments like the above are as common as they are.

Frank

Mark said "But go on, keep insulting the people of St Helier and calling them thick because they choose people you don’t like. That will make your argument go down extra well there "

You misread and you misunderstand, Mark.

You misread, because the words that you attribute were not written.

You misunderstand when you state that the voters of St Helier choose these idiots. If you had read the comments properly, you will understand that this is not the case. What is the case is that the voters are presented with a selection of oddballs who use St Helier as an entry point.

They are, therefore, faced with a "hobsons choice" of undesirables. Sadly, the process means that some of these undesirables gets more votes than the others and scrapes a seat.

Julian

That is why option A was so attractive to all the eccentrics- with 14 deputies in St Helier, it would have allowed a large number of political undesirables to scrape in with a handful of votes. As has been said above, any one of these unsavouries with only minimal political legitimacy could have been involved with a ministry.

At least the present "St Helier oddball feeder" system only allows a few off the wall ones to slip through- imagine if we had to endure 14 of them!

Oddly, the supporters of these oddities are the pious spoilsports who are moaning about the Grouville election. The sam types also keep bashing Sir Philip- the fact that he secured a record number of votes (against a handful of weirdo ones) does not seem to register with their minds.

Well done Mr Le Maistre.

Dave C

Julian,

So, to summarise your opinion:

You are in favour of the manipulation of the boundaries of constituencies, in order to prevent the democratic election of people, whose views you disagree with.

Would you also be in favour of disenfranchising the supporters of 'the oddities' on the basis that they voted for them?

Julian

Dave C;, to summarise your opinion as stated:

You are in favour of the manipulation of the boundaries of constituencies, in order to prevent the democratic election of people, whose views you disagree with.

Would you also be in favour of disenfranchising the supporters of ‘the oddities’ on the basis that they voted for them?

Dave C

What?

I didn't give an opinion.

Julian

Neither did I. It was all clearly a figment of your imagination.

Bill

Quite so. Dave C did not venture an opinion per se, but neither did he venture anything of any value. His comment was of a recationary, inflammatory nature.

He simply wrote out an account and attempted to falsely represent it as the opinion of another.

His words perhaps constitute his own thoughts in so far as they are his own considered words that he has taken the trouble to write here, so perhaps it is fair to say that his comment does, notwithsatnding his protests to the contrary, represent his own opinion.

Dave C

Bill,

Why would trying to confirm someone's opposition to democracy not be considered a contribution?

If I was not contributing, how could your response be considered a contribution?

Dave C

Julian,

You clearly did give an opinion. Unless, of course, you are making a retraction.

Bill

Rather than "trying to confirm someone's opposition to democracy", Dave, you should be exercising your own thoughts (if possible) rather than falsely posting something which bears no relation to the orginal comment.

That is what is meant when people speak of your making no contribution.

Kate

Dave C;, to summarise your opinion as stated:

You are in favour of the manipulation of the comments of another, in order to prevent the democratic free speech of people, whose views you disagree with.

Would you also be in favour of disenfranchising those whose comment you regard as ‘oddities’ on the basis that you disagree with them?

Julian

Oh yes, I did give an opinion, just not the one that you stated.

Stephanie

Dave C; "If I was not contributing, how could your response be considered a contribution?"

Well, the answer to your question is really quite simple. Your post did not make any contribution, as you admit. You go on to suggest that any response would be similarly devoid of value.

The value of the response to your comment is that it highlights the fact that your post was bereft of substance; it helps you to see the error of your message. Your admission shows this to have been the case.

If your proposition regarding response were correct, then it would follow that no-one would be able to respond to any comment which was as facile as yours. While your desire to censor fair comment is clear from your second remark, such a thing would not be a feature of a mature debate, nor indeed of any debate in a free society.

I hope that this assists you.

Dave C

Kate,

No, not really. It's quite clear, from what Julian wrote, that he is in favour of keeping the St. Helier voters in a democratically under-represented state, because he disagrees with the opinions of the people that they elect.

I believe that every individual's vote should carry the same weight.

It is wrong of you to say that I am trying to prevent his freedom of speech as I am merely disagreeing with him and he has the right of reply.

Kate

I didn't read Julian's post that way, Dave C.

I am glad to see that you believe that it is wrong to say that you are trying to prevent freedom of speech. I believe that it is wrong too, so let's not have any more of it please.

As you say, you are merely disagreeing with Julian, in much the same way as you note that he disagrees with the representatives who are elected in St Helier.

I am merely disagreeing with you and you have a right of reply.

Dave C

Kate,.

It was clear from Julian's post that was pleased that St. Helier was not allowed equal representation with other constituencies and that this is because he disagrees with the politics of those that are elected there. This is effectively manipulation of the boundaries by failing to alter them. It seems logical to suppose that he also disagrees with the politics of those that elect these deputies and may wish to stop them from voting. Which is why I asked the question, which he did not answer.

Julian

Dave C; I was under the impression that I had answered. Your summary, as you know, is wholly incorrect. I stated no such thing, as you again well know.

It remains clear from your posts that you are in favour of the manipulation of the comments of another, in order to prevent the democratic free speech of people, whose views you disagree with.

It is also logical to suppose that you would be in favour of disenfranchising those whose comment you regard as ‘oddities’ on the basis that you disagree with them.

Kate

No, Dave, it was clear from Julian's post that he was stating that St Helier is attractive to all the eccentrics- it tends to allow a large number of political undesirables to scrape in with a handful of votes.

Any one of what you have called these "oddities" could potentially be involved with a ministry.

Julian rightly observes that at least the present “St Helier oddball feeder” system only allows a few of your "oddities" to slip through- imagine if we would have had to endure 14 of them under the rejected reform proposals.

Strangely, as he states, the supporters of these oddities, who speak of democracy a great deal, are those moaning about the Grouville election.

These "democratic" types also keep bashing Sir Philip- the fact that he secured a record number of votes (against a handful of weirdo ones) does not seem to register with their minds.

It is therefore clear to me and to others that Julian's post does not state what you are trying to misrepresent. On the contrary, it celebrates democratic legitimacy of the public vote (particularly in the island wide mandate), something with which you seem to have a difficulty.

Dave C

Kate,

Yes Kate, 'it was clear from Julian’s post that he was stating that St Helier is attractive to all the eccentrics- it tends to allow a large number of political undesirables to scrape in with a handful of votes.'

What I was trying to summarise was what this and his other comments actually mean.

It was Julian that called them oddities, not me. I was just quoting him. Please get the facts right.

I neither support any of the St. Helier deputies, as no-one I voted for was elected, nor have I complained about the Grouville election. I hope that you are not including me amongst the moaners that you mention.

I think the PB is one of Julian's sort. I believe that PB, Julian and maybe you feel a need to project Jersey from democracy, as you think that you know what's best for all of us. Democratic elections would get in the way of that maybe.

It's extremely clear, indeed an established fact, that we do not have democratic legitimacy of the public vote, as it's loaded in favour of many out of Town constituencies. Until we have voting equality, nothing that we vote on, has democratic legitimacy.

Julian

A very interesting and revealing latter post, Dave C. You seem to have fallen into the trap of summarising what other people's posts mean. Even when corrected, you insist upon digging yourself in further and continuing to represent what others have written.

You now seem to talk about Senator Bailhache being "your type of politician". This is an odd and divisive description. Senator Sir Philip Bailhache may or may not be my type of politician. The plain fact is that he the a politician of the "type" of more than seventeen thousand voters. A poll which broke electoral records of recent decades.

Yet you talk about democracy, while at the same time suggesting that the will of seventeen thousand voters does not account for very much. Rather than speaking of "projecting from democracy", perhaps you ought to recognise the concept from beyond your short sighted and rather immediate view.

I would politely suggest that you try to form your own considered view rather than concerning yourself with those of others.

Kate

Dave,

Yes Dave, it was indeed clear from Julian’s post that he was stating that St Helier is attractive to all the eccentrics- it tends to allow a large number of political undesirables to scrape in with a handful of votes.

The wording is uncontentious, so too is the message.

You were trying to summarise what the comment meant, even though, as you say, it was stated there in plain english.

It was Julian that called them oddities, not you. You were just quoting him.

You neither support any of the St. Helier deputies, as no-one you voted for was elected, nor have you complained about the Grouville election. You hope that we are not including you amongst the moaners that have been mentioned.

I too think the PB is one of Julian’s sort. He is also one of mine and, obviously, one of more than 16,000 others. He is, in fact, "of the type" of more voters for a single candidate than Jersey has seen in recent electoral history.

I believe that you feel a need to detract Jersey from democracy, as you think that you know what is best for all of us. You clearly don't approve of a senatorial vote-topper, even though, with the island wide mandate, the democratic credentials must be beyond doubt, except to those who project despotism.

Democratic elections would get in the way of your leanings in that respect maybe.

The public vote does confer democracy, that much is quite clear, contrary to what you write. The system seems quite satisfactory- the only problem to many is the quality of candidates looking for an easy seat in St Helier.

Dave C

Julian,

In order to dig myself in deeper, I would have had to make a mistake in the first place, which I don't believe that I have. Why don't you address the points that I have made, rather than just attacking me personally.

Direct question, do you support PB, yes or no?

I didn't suggest, what you suggest, that I suggested. But let us deal with it anyway. I have no objection whatsoever to PB being elected and do not believe that the will of 17,000 people counts for nothing. That's why I did not say that. What I object to is the difference in the size of constituencies. I think that you understand this but are just trying to misrepresent my views.

My considered view, is that I should oppose your ill-considered view. This last point of yours appears to be a weak attempt to close down debate. I would suggest that you encourage debate, which naturally means concerning oneself with the comments of others.

Dave C

Kate,

Your first few paragraphs are incoherent, so I cannot deal with them.

As for 'oddities', you stated that I used the term and then stated that I was quoting Julian. Please make up your mind.

St. Helier deputies do not scrape in with a handful of votes. The St.Helier. deputy with the least votes in 2011, got more votes than some of those elected elsewhere. That is an indisputable fact.

I am not against the island wide mandate, it's just not my first choice. The island wide mandate for all politicians would be better than what we have now.

And then we get to despotism. So, you believe that because I favour a more democratic electoral system, that makes me despotic. Really?

Julian

Dave C, to summarise your opinion as stated;

You have no objection to a vote topping candidate but you would nonetheless like to amend the electoral boundaries to prevent such a candidate getting in and to increase the prospects of those seeking easy seats in one particular parish.

You are also interested in continuing debate, which necessarily involves your misrepresenting the views of others and prying into their activites at the ballot box.

Would you also be in favour of disenfranchising the supporters of senatorial vote toppers on the basis that they voted for them?

Fu Manchu

Those who have to "summarise" the views of others and who feel compelled to ask them who they voted for are those who lack political conviction and like flowers blowing in the wind, are blissfully mindless.

Kate

I anticipate that the message would be incoherent, because it adopted the words of your post, Dave, which was itself incoherent. The reason why I recited your own words back to you was to afford you the opportunity to confirm that they were lacking coherence, which you have now kindly done.

Richard Ionary

So, your saying Kate, that you don’t know what your talking about?

Not surprising, Its quite clear that Julian wants St Helier under-represented because he doesnt like the people that have been elected there. Not a very fair idea.

Perhaps, Kate, You are Julian, posting under a different pseudonym, simply trying to act the child and wind Dave up.

Bill's deleted messages

Don't think so. Kate was saying that she didn't understand Dave's garbled message and she therefore recited it in a vain attempt to seek some clarification.

Julian, meanwhile, made no mention of under-representation, he merely pointed out the low quality of the candidates within that parish and their doubtful motives for seeking an easy platform within the same parish.

Hope this helps.

Flip

These pages are full of moaning and groaning.

All of you should get a grip on reality. If you don't like the system then you won't change it from the outside by shouting and screaming. All this equal representation stuff is silly. Every society that has proportionate representation / equal representation ends up with split party governments because since humans have different ideas, everyone thinks they have the best solution.

If its soo easy to get elected in St Helier or Grouville then why don't you just stop moaning and get elected ! If you get in - fantastic - you can have your say - if you don't then it means your views are not backed by the electorate so step away and shut up.

All I see on these pages are the same miserable moaning bunch. I'm sure that if the headline was "SUN FOR THE NEXT 12 MONTHS" - you'd all be there saying thats its not fair as it will be too hot !! As my other half says to me "get over it or get out!!"

I would stand, but...

....I can't take the pay cut.

sassi

There has been a contested election this time for Constable in Grouville because the incumbent died. Will there be one in October 2014? I don't recall Dan Murphy facing a contender in 2011. Clearly there is something inherent in the Constable that makes the institution highly unsuitable as a representative in a legislature.

There needs to be one category of States member elected in constituencies of equal size all on the same day. Why is achieving that such an impossible dream? The failure to reform and lay the foundations of a workable democracy in Jersey is leading to exasperation.

Jon

Easy solution is for the "A" camp to put up their own candidates in each Parish to make them contestable. Basically put up or shut up.

Mark

Why? They don't believe the Constables should be in the States. That would make them hypocrites.

Hark

They already are!

Well done John

Indeed, moan all you like about equal representation and representative assemblies but the fact remains that our First Citizen and Controller of States Debate is an unelected chief judge. How's THAT for 21st century governmental standards?

Mark

Well said. It's mad.

An independent report (Carswell) said we need to get the Bailiff out of the States, so the States ignore it.

Another independent report said we need to get the Constables out of the States, so the States ignore it.

Where does it end?

Scrutineer

Yes, but we have a referendum too. Which has greater legitimacy in your eyes: a referendum or an independent report?

Interestingly, how many St Helier deputies voted down the referendum because the turnout was low, when they, themselves, got in on a turnout of less than 40%?

I don't mind the bailiff as long as he does not have a vote (does he have a casting vote?).

I see you are not only a Tadier supported but a champion of a few other things. Good luck.

Mark

Objective democratic principles trump both referendums and independent reports. One Option A spokesperson at a debate I went to used the example of a referendum to ban left handed people from voting. Even if it is won, it's still illegitimate because it contravenes the overriding principles of democracy.

If you are genuinely interested to see how many St Helier Deputies ignored the referendum for that reason, you can read the hansard on the States website. I listened on the radio as it was going on and recall most St Helier Deputies arguing against it because as a system it left St Helier under-represented. Were I a St Helier Deputy, that would have been exactly what I'd have done.

As it happens, I'm not actually a supporter of Tadier. He is a left-winger, I'm a right-winger. But I am a supporter of good debate, so have had to defend him occasionally because most of the vitriol levelled against him is pathetic and anti-democratic. But that has nothing to do with this.

Lulu

I am not surprised that the person used such a ridiculous analogy. He was probably searching within his limited intellect for a better one but failed to do so.

St Helier is certainly not under represented when it comes to memebers of limited experience and odd ideas. As has been said above, the easy seats present a shiny light to the moths of leftism and political disruption.

Mark

The problem you have Lulu is that what you are saying flies in the face of fact.

St Helier is underrepresented and that is a fact confirmed by all academic reviews into the subject.

St Helier has one third of the population of the island, but it has much less than a third of the representation. That might be difficult for you to comprehend, but that means it's underrepresented.

I also find it funny how you call an analogy ridiculous, but don't explain how or offer an alternative. The fact is, Option B was a pathetic attempt to keep St Helier voters on their knees and whether it was backed in a referendum or not didn't change the fact it was a power grab.

Scrutineer

Mark - You have not answered the question that I posed. You were the one who raised independent reports. I have read bits of the debate, and discussed it with my constable and one of the deputies. I understand the concept of higher principles, democratic or otherwise; the death penalty and poll results are another example of some risks of direct public opinion. However, the referendum was about a choice between some options, all of varying degrees of democratic legitimacy, such that none could be argued to be fundamentally undemocratic. Consider for example the USA government system with its 2 senators per state, regardless of population, in the upper house. I know that some think that Option A was the most democratic, but there are a number of counter arguments expressed in all these posts, an obvious one being the low turnout in St Helier. I merely asked, since you appear to have placed importance on the independent reports, if the referendum had a greater validity than an independent report; yes or no?

On Tadier, there may have been vitriol by some, but my position is that he has demonstrated a lack of common sense, and therefore is a danger to the Jersey economy; hence I do not want him in the States. This is not an issue of vitriol, but merely, as I would imagine you would agree given your posts, a perfectly legitimate statement in a democracy.

Objective democratic principles trump

It doesn't look as if he is going to answer the question, Srutineer. Now there's a surprise!

Mark

Scrutineer, some fair points.

You say that each referendum option had a varying degree of democratic legitimacy. Maybe, but given that Option B was the product of a partisan commission and was an acknowledged backwards step for equal representation in the island I think that whatever legitimacy it might have had would certainly be absolutely minimal. Had the referendum been between Option A and some hypothetical Option B+ which was not as democratic as Option A but a small improvement on the current system, then it would have been able to be implemented on the basis you say.

I wouldn't ever use the USA in these examples. Their system is certainly not a good example for the world. After all, in 2000 they got a president who got fewer votes than his opponent.

I don't agree that a backbencher is a danger to our economy, I'm more concerned with the complacency of the Council of Ministers on issues like immigration, LVCR and the belief of some members that Jersey would be better off cutting our ties with the UK and EU. But at least you can make your case without resorting to the rather awful hysteria some people were engaged in (including Philip Ozouf).

Objective democratic principles trump

A bit "waffly" there, Mark and you still haven't answered the question.

Mark

"Objective democratic principles trump" - I apologise you can't quite comprehend it.

Given your previous silly comment about me not replying right away, I suspect there is no answer I could give that you'd appreciate ;)

Objective Democratic Principles Trump

A straightforward "yes or no" as Scrutineer requested would suffice.

I do agree, though, that I (along, I suspect with a majority of othes) would be at pains to comprehend, far less appreciate, any more detailed response that you might give, if your previous efforts are anything to go by! :)

Zoro

Bailiff out,Constables out..all elected members same class all with island wide mandate...=DEMOCRACY..you cannot possibly call this insane mayhem we have now remotely democratic,the council of monisters has proved that irredeemably