Saturday, October 15, 2011

Senatorial Voting??

As this was originally an explicitly partisan blog, I really ought to take a few sides in the coming elections. We don't really do elections in a very big way out here in Trinity, but at least there are the Senatorials. And they are a rather challenging choice this time around.

If you are content with the current States, and want more of the same, your choice is easy: Bailhache, Cohen, Gorst and Farnham. All competent to play their parts in effectively continuing to deliver the same old failing right-wing agenda.

However, politics is about moral values, as well as competence. If you are reading this, you probably are not particularly keen on right-wing moral values. Thus, while you may prefer the above to the utterly clueless people who occasionally stumble into elections, you may join me in wishing for some capable people with a centre or even left-wing value system. Now let us try and find four of those on the ballot paper.

Rose Colley? Rather ambiguous, as political lawyers often are. Her background suggests a social conscience, and she seems to say the right things. On the other hand, her proposers were as establishment as you can get. Was she using them, or is she really one of them, and making a misleading election pitch. Given the alternatives, I think I shall take a chance on the former being true, and vote for her, but I am not without doubts.

Linda Corby? I know her personally, and she is an entertaining raconteuse who has led a colourful life, as she tells it. She will bring passion and commitment, and will not be pressured into shutting up when there are whistles to be blown. I fear she would be out of her depth on policy, though. If you are sure there will be another right-wing landslide, then she is at least cut out for being a fierce backbench watchdog, and you may want to vote for her to take that role. I want an alternative government, though, not more snipers, so I don't think she is for me.

Mark Forskitt? YES! Political experience in a bigger jurisdiction, a firm grasp of both local and global issues, and rather better credentials than Syvret to take a stand on the child care problem, despite a balanced view of priorities that push this one some way down his list.

Sylvia Lagadu? Sylvia Lagadu?

Francis le Gresley? YES! He may be a lacklustre public speaker, but he is a doer and an organiser who has pulled his weight in his brief term as a Senator.

Darius Pearce? Colourful character and creative, original thinker. Sooner or later he will think of something I can approve, probably later. This time's idea is an abdication of responsibility and misses the point of representative democracy, however, so I shall not vote for him.

David Richardson? Clever and serious, but doesn't really communicate any clear strategic view. He certainly is not bottom of my list, but nor has he earned a place in my top four yet.

Stuart Syvret? My readers' favourite, and, in bygone years, the recipient of a few of my own votes. Still intelligent, articulate and an exceptionally talented public speaker. However, he is now conspicuously broken by his struggles,and his common sense, judgement and integrity have all crumbled to ashes. Vexatious litigation and poison-pen blogging are poor qualifications for high office, to my mind. Deserves twelfth place, but will probably come higher. Hopefully not in the top four, though.

Chris Whitworth? When I saw that he had declared, I thought that was another of my votes settled. Then, I saw the tongue-in-cheek tone of his campaign. Chris is a another clever and serious candidate, with a fine track record of serious work at the grass roots of Jersey politics. He is a bit uncharismatic, though, and lost badly for that in a previous campaign. This time he has overcompensated in his efforts to be seen as a colourful character and made himself look a lot sillier than those who know him think him to be. As I do know him, and have confidence in his ability, I should vote for him. On the other hand, he has campaigned badly, and a vote for him is probably wasted. So, there is a case for tactically voting for Linda Corby after all. She is rather unlikely to get in, either, but there is at least a remote chance of a shock result, which a few more votes would help towards, while poor Chris is now a lost cause in this election.


  1. An more honest and accurate survey that "Honest" Nev - insight not propaganda.

  2. Rose Colley is more of the same..

  3. What a load of rubbish if this is the best advice/view you can give don't, you are ex JDA it shows, they got no where and you and your views are failures why should any one take any notice of your views?

  4. What a load of rubbish if this is the best advice/view you can give don't, you are ex JDA it shows, they got no where and you and your views are failures why should any one take any notice of your views?

    Because this is a Democracy


  5. Anonymous #2:
    if you think this is rubbish, then you may post your alternative view here. Presumably you think Sir Phil and co are incompetent lefties, Forskitt, le Gresley and Corby are Freemasons, Lagadu is a born leader and Syvret still has his marbles. Or if you agree with some of what I said, have the grace to say so.

  6. There's a better reason for not voting Bailhache than "the same failed right wing agenda". Simply this: he doesn't understand what is going on around him - and consequently some of his statements look pretty damn silly.

    It pains me to say it, but even amongst the company of Gorst and Cohen he can't cut the mustard.

  7. "poison-pen blogging"

    In light of your chosing completely to overlook the very important information released by Syvret on his blog into the public domain, a purpose for which his blog has on the whole been used, I'm interested to know how you define that phrase?

    And why you specfically chose to overlook the former?

    Thank you.

  8. Dave, I am afraid you may have missed the point entirely of my campaign...

    What I am proposing is akin to proper party politics (albeit it with just one party - the whole of Jersey)

    Ed Milliband and David Cameron do not decide party policy, the membership does (and I mean the whole membership not just those in the House) that is what party conferences are for.

  9. Anonymous #4:

    The trouble with Syvret's uncorroborated "information" is telling facts from spiteful lies. Whether the spiteful lies are his own , or he can't tell them from facts himself, I don't know. If the the blog is as well-researched and analysed as his court evidence, then it is best taken with a large pinch of salt.

  10. Darius:

    To cast responsible, well-informed votes on propositions, you need to have read all the reports, listened to the debates and considered the implications. Most of us have lives, and can not find the time to do all that properly. So, we need to elect professional politicians we trust to do it all for us.
    Even within a party, developing policy mostly gets delegated to the "wonks" who have or claim to have the expertise.
    While your unofficial referenda would not be without all merit, they would not be very productive in creating policy.
    To adapt an old proverb to the situation: In the People's Republic of the Blind, the one-eyed man is outvoted!

  11. The point is that I will read the proposals consider the implications (through my own libertarian tinted lenses) and indicate how I would want to vote - you can either agree with my reasoning or not, but I have no intention of telling you I know better than you about everything, that there is no point I might have missed out.

    All it means is that I will debate twice; once with the public and once in the chamber with the additional weight of being able to show empirically what the will of the people is.

    I don't want your first vote I want your fourth vote - choose three safe pairs of hands to let you down as usual and take a chance on me with your fourth vote. It is a new idea and hopefully it is worth you taking that risk.

  12. "The trouble with Syvret's uncorroborated "information" is telling facts from spiteful lies. Whether the spiteful lies are his own , or he can't tell them from facts himself, I don't know. If the the blog is as well-researched and analysed as his court evidence, then it is best taken with a large pinch of salt."

    Again you're choosing to ignore certain aspects.

    I'm sure Syvret has at times presented "uncorroborated information", but what about all the official documentation he has referenced or made public?

    You're clearly biased against Syvret, which is of course your prerogative, but please don't treat us like fools and pretend you're presenting a balanced appraisal when it comes to discussing the content of his blog.

  13. Darius:

    Yes, you make your case well. I am coming around to thinking I will give you that hard-to-place fourth vote, now.

    Anonymous #4/5:

    it is not so much that I ignore the stuff on SSB as that much of the more recent work is open to very reasonable doubt, and sometimes he makes simply false statements about people I know quite well. How can I then trust his view of strangers? Actually, I still think the archive of the first couple of years of SSB is essential reading for anyone interested in Jersey curent affairs. And lies are all the more dangerous when wrapped up in truth. If I told you 2+14=16, 2-14=-12, 2x14=28 and 2/14=1.465, you would look at the three obviously right answers and tend to assume the one that looks sort of right is too. Yet it was deliberately false. Political fibs are harder to spot, but it is the same process.
    For getting the big stories out of official documents, try Rico "cut-and-paste-blog" Sorda. He says very little of his own, but has a keen eye for picking out the telling quotes from the surest sources. And, for balance, HDLGMF , who often pick different quotes from the same or equally sure sources to tell another story altogether.

  14. Funnily enough, I have just read the latest SSB post, that seems to be back on his old form, drawing together well-known and evidenced facts to take a shot at Sean Power and Frank Walker, and a whole broadside at Sir Phil.

  15. final choices after offline chats and online feedback:-
    Forskitt and le Gresley without doubt or hesitation, then Linda Corby, who can be trusted to be an honest and outspoken backbencher, instead of Colley, whom everyone else also suspects of being too close to the establishment, and Darius Pearce, who I don't always agree with, but ticks three important boxes; he is nobody's puppet, he thinks for himself and he is clued up about economics.

  16. and now it is all over. Disappointing, but unsurprising. At least we got Farnham for the third Tory, not Cohen. His first stint in the States was fairly undistinguished, but I have done business with him in a previous career, and thought well of him.


We shall not accept comments that are offensive in language or content, libellous, irrelevant or deranged.
We have no means of editing comments -it is all or nothing. So, if there is any of your comment we can't use, we can't use any of it.