The question is whether it goes beyond the broad, generic anti-politician feeling that is as firmly rooted here as elsewhere

But as I say, we don’t have enough room for that. There is, thankfully, enough time to point out that one of the things that makes the Blue Note so excellent is that its positioning between King Street and Broad Street means a lot of people have to walk past it. All sorts of people, good, bad and ugly. Including, on Thursday afternoon, one of the Council of Ministers, who was persuaded to stop for a moment.

And it gave me a chance to ask a question that had been nagging away at the back of my mind for a while, namely: ‘Don’t you think it’s strange that with nine candidates covering all sorts of political views in the by-election, that not one of them stood up to say that he supported the Council of Ministers and thought that they were going about things in the right way?’

He looked at me like I was crazy and said no one would be so daft. And that just might be the most interesting thing about last week’s Senatorial by-election. There are other interesting things of course, like who were the winners, who were the losers, and what do the results say about the next election, but it might be that what they say about the Council of Ministers is key.

Leaving aside the rights or wrongs of what the Council of Ministers get up to, the fact that no election candidates saw fit to endorse them – and that the ministers themselves accept this fact as fairly natural and unremarkable – is remarkable, particularly in light of the 2008 election results that saw two of the four ministers standing – Mike Vibert and Guy de Faye – lose their seats by fairly clear margins.

The question is whether it goes beyond the broad, generic anti-politician feeling that is as firmly rooted here as it is elsewhere in the world – or whether connection to ministerial government is in fact a hazard to electoral health, which raises a new set of questions.

Last week’s poll-topper, Senator Francis Le Gresley, went fairly close to the ministerial line, but criticised ministers for pandering to developers, proposed a higher rate of tax for high earners and a capital gains tax and said that much more needed to be done to diversify the economy – all of which hardly adds up to a ringing endorsement of ministerial policy.

But to say that the Council of Ministers were the biggest losers in the election would be putting it a step too far.

That award has to go to the Jersey Democratic Alliance. No one can look at Deputy Geoff Southern’s slippage from seventh place (one off a Senatorial seat) in the 2008 elections to fifth in the by-election without thinking that this was an electoral gamble that went horribly wrong – and in a similar way, his reasoning that people didn’t vote for him because he was already in the States is at best a little late in the day, and at worst as flimsy an election excuse as you’ll ever hear.

The main winner, somewhat obviously, is Senator Le Gresley who appeared genuinely taken aback by the margin of his victory and the fact that he topped the poll in 11 parishes – not bad going for a newcomer to politics.

Former Deputies Pat Ryan and Gerard Baudains both did well in the final standings, well enough to justify a bit of consideration at a run next time around.

The results throw an interesting light on the next election in 2011 –partly because it’s the last real test before Jersey moves to a not-quite-a-general election system, and partly because of who’s not running in it – a list that includes Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur and Environment Minister Freddie Cohen, and could include a couple more besides.

With Social Security Minister Ian Gorst and Housing Minister Sean Power likely Senatorial candidates, it could be that the 2011 Senatorial slate still looks a little on the crowded side. And that’s before you add in Education Minister James Reed, Transport Minister Mike Jackson and Health Minister Anne Pryke – all of whom enjoy fairly safe country seats (a possible factor in their selection as ministers?) but who have to face up to the fact that that’s on the wrong side of acceptable if you want to run a major States department.

And then you add the mysterious and mysteriously-named ‘Spoiled Papers’ chap who managed to beat three of the candidates, despite not saying a word at the hustings – and it all starts to look a bit grim for 2011.

Another week of hilarity in Cutsville – the States spend £1,250 per day on the Waterfront pool and have given a convicted money launderer back £2.3m that they originally confiscated from him a few years ago, with interest. But they want another £50m in tax, as well as cuts to (you guessed it) school milk, language assistant in schools and the Christmas bonus. Is anyone starting to see a problem with all of this?