Well, you turn your back for a few days and all sorts of nasty creatures come
out of the woodwork.
In this case, over the Christmas break, no sooner were the lights turned out in
the States Chamber than there was an outbreak of conservatives scurrying around
to preserve the status quo and desperate to turn back any vestige of democratic
reform.
The States recently voted to begin the tentative process of reform of the States
Assembly which has lain neglected for over a decade. Clothier was cherry-picked
by ministers for their own ends.
Recently, however, members voted to reduce the number of Senators by two. The
‘no change’ party sent up howls of anguish: ‘Save the Senators’, ‘Protect the
Constables’. And then they went on the attack: ‘Destroy the Deputies’ and
finally ‘Beat up the backbenchers’.
Senator Paul Routier was in the vanguard with a straightforward attack on the
ability of all non-executive members to represent their constituents and to
bring propositions to the States.
He seems to want a parliament where the only business is the rubber-stamping of
whatever a minister chooses to bring to the States. Recently many backbenchers
have actually started to get political. They bring their own propositions and
have the temerity to argue with ministers.
‘We can’t have that!’ says Senator
Routier. ‘Let’s increase the lodging time for backbencher propositions, and
insist that any proposal has seven signatures before it is lodged. That will
slow them down. While we’re at it, we can reduce the time allowed for any
backbencher to speak in a debate. That way we can get decisions wrong more
quickly.’
Then we had contributions from Senators Cohen and Ferguson. They have both leapt
to the defence of that endangered species … the Senator. Senator Cohen is the
mildest, with a proposal for a referendum on the reduction of senators from 12
to eight. Senator Ferguson (clearly not acting out of self-interest but purely
from altruistic motives) takes a harder line, demanding that the decision to
reduce the number of senators be reversed.
Then to cap it all, into the fray charges Deputy Eddie Noel, who has never
brought a back bench proposition, but appears to constantly await instructions
on his Blackberry from his political masters, with a cunning plan.
‘Let’s reduce the number of deputies from 29 to 21!’ This reduces the
representation of St Helier, with a third of the population, down to seven. It
leaves the Assembly with its Constables and Senators providing an overwhelming
conservative majority.
Despite their best efforts the fact is that there must be reform if we are to
have a viable and responsive democracy in the Island. The way to achieve this
democratic representation was outlined by Sir Cecil Clothier back in 2000. He
said:
• The role of Senator should be abolished.
• The Constables should cease to be ex-officio members of the States.
• The Bailiff should no longer preside over the States Assembly.
• There should be one General Election every four years.
• There should be a single central register of voters.
The time has come to follow through with the full package of reforms contained
in the Clothier report. Reform Jersey will pursue this agenda to achieve
responsible and accountable government.
The Bailiff Should Just be the Island's Chief Judge
Its central recommendation that the Bailiff merely no longer preside as speaker
of the States Assembly, is carefully crafted to the expediency of what is
palatable to faint hearted States Members. The report fails, as it should, to
recommend the creation of three distinct institutions, that of civic head,
speaker of the legislature and senior Judge, unencumbered by multiple post
holding by one person. They will come because these are the hallmarks of modern
western democratic political systems.
Much of the defence of the status quo is by reference to heritage and tradition.
This is simply myth making. Who can name a Bailiff pre-1940 let alone list two
of his achievements?
Hanging on to the status quo is just not an option. The jurisprudence of the
European Court of Human Rights clearly endorses the traditional concept of the
separation of powers; that the three functions of government – legislative,
executive and judicial – should be conferred to a separate body or authority, so
that no individual should be a member of more than one of them.
Sooner or later the present arrangements will fall foul of a critical legal
judgment. The British government will exercise its authority, as it did over the
constitution of Sark, to effect change, leading to inevitable humiliation for
the Island. Jersey’s political class is rapidly becoming a liability because
they cannot recognise when change is necessary, preferring bull headed obstinacy
to pragmatism.
In his recent interview with the BBC, Sir Philip Bailhache remarked: ‘If the
Bailiff is no longer President of the States, a chain of reaction will begin and
as night follows day that will change the constitutional arrangements for ever
and the Bailiff will no longer be the civic head of the Island and something I
believe will have been lost.’ One could easily dismiss such remarks as
reactionary and apocalyptic – Après moi le déluge. I believe he is prescient in
pointing out that once change begins it will not stop. Sir Philip is also
correct to warn against retaining the Bailiff as civic head yet having an
elected president of the States Assembly. This sweet compromise will crumble to
dust. The choice he presents as one between irreversible change or the status
quo, is really one between embracing modernity or preservation of the Ancien
Régime. The day of democratic reckoning is close.
Sir Philip likens reforming the Bailiff’s role to that of abolishing
constitutional monarchy. Curiously he suggests that the issue be put in the form
of a referendum. Why this democratic gesture? Ought Louis XVI to have
consulted the People if he could remain King when his ancestors had ruled France
for 200 years? Perhaps we should be reminded of the words of Saint-Just in his
speech to the Convention in 1792 that a king ‘doit régner ou mourir… On ne peut
point régner innocemment.’ The real reason the political class favours a
referendum is that they know they can easily win given there is 80% electoral
abstention. It is not an acknowledgement of popular sovereignty, more a cynical
manoeuvre of managing public opinion to endorse elite interests. Needless to
say, a referendum in which only 20% vote does not confer legitimacy.
It is evident that the Jersey polity is a blocked one, with Crown Officers and a
section of the States Assembly, being not just hostile to democratic reforms but
intellectually bereft of their necessity. At stake is the issue of power. The
political elite recognise their authority is insecure resting as it does on an
indecent handful of votes from the wealthy in an electoral system designed to
exclude participation.
Sir Philip’s conduct in entering the political arena on this issue personifies
precisely what it wrong with the present system. He may be an ex-Bailiff, but he
comments whilst still a serving judge in the Jersey Court of Appeal. He also
alludes enigmatically in his interview (JEP, 18 December) to a possible future
political career.
Does this mean he will replace the white cockade of monarchy with that of the
tricoleur, and step forth into the democratic era as Citizen Bailhache? Aux
urnes citoyens.
While I realise that the view put forward by Mr. Brewers that we should not
allow ourselves to be bullied by the EU ( 21 December) is shared by many people,
his reasoning was far from clear as he appears to agree with the JDA ( and most
other people of Jersey) that zero-ten is causing our financial problems and
should be scrapped. That is also the view of the EU Council on the Code of
Conduct on Corporate Taxation who are of the view that the zero-ten situation is
“harmful taxation” and therefore not complaint with their Code of Conduct
Jersey and the other Crown dependencies have no alternative but to abide by this
Code if we wish to do business on an international scale. As an analogy let’s
take the air line business .
If Jersey fails to comply with the international regulations governing air
traffic, aircraft leaving the Island could be barred from landing at any airport
controlled by this organisation, which means most airports around the world. We
recently had to re-fence our entire airport perimeter at considerable cost
because the old one failed their standards- and there was simply no alternative.
Jersey’s situation was perfectly explained in the 2004 Fiscal Strategy Document
presented to the States by the Finance Committee headed by the then Senator
Frank Walker. This document contained the arguments used to explain why zero-ten
had to be introduced to replace the Exempt Company situation, the rock on which
Jersey’s financial position was built.
The EU had decided that this Exempt Company tax regime was in breach of the EU
code of Conduct and the States replaced it with zero-ten. Back then there were
people clamouring for Jersey to stand up and fight for our constitutional rights
and tell the EU to keep out of our affairs, why were we not standing up for our
constitutional rights?
The Fiscal Report of 2004 covered this at some length and it is worth reminding
those Islanders who want to get “bolshie” and look for a fight with the EU and
the UK Treasury that this is what was said at that time.
“Jersey is positioned on the periphery of the European Union and conducts much
trade with it and derives significant opportunities from such positioning to
develop financial service and other business with EU nationals. A policy which
contemplates not just isolationism in this respect, but also one which would
have the effect of undermining the EU Code of Conduct exercise with attendant
damage to the UK relationship with its EU partners, would seem again to
represent a very high-risk approach.
The United Kingdom is determined to ensure compliance by its dependent
territories with the EU Code of Conduct with similar pressure faced by Guernsey
and the Isle of Man in this respect. Although there are constitutional arguments
to invoke to resist this, Jersey has already seen the UK prepared to contemplate
a highly pressurised approach to forcing this compliance with threats of
unilateral action by them against the island to achieve such an outcome should
the island ignore the Code of Conduct requests.
One such measure would be the revocation of the exemptions permitted to island
businesses within the UK’s Controlled Foreign Companies legislation. Such
revocation would have a rapid and detrimental tax impact on all UK-owned
businesses in the island and would probably force them to re-evaluate their
options for representation on the island over time. Where this would create most
immediate concern would be in the banking sector with a handful of UK-owned
banks accounting for a very high share of the direct tax revenues and 50% of the
island’s financial services workforce.
There are other areas where the UK could take unilateral economic actions with
severe consequences for Jersey, such as in withdrawing existing double tax
exemptions and the possible implementation of withholding taxes on inter-bank
deposits by Jersey-based institutions into the UK.
All such measures are potentially serious for any large UK-owned business,
particularly in financial services, in the Island. Therefore, they do not
represent an acceptable basis of risk if our policies were to invite their
implementation or even threat, recognising that business cannot function well in
the face of uncertainty and attendant adverse economic decision making.”
That is Jersey’s position in a nutshell as put by the Finance Committee of 2004
- and nothing has changed since then.
Those who wish to get into a fight with the mighty tank that is the EU and the
UK Treasury armed with just a .303 rifle are as deluded as a featherweight boxer
who believes he can take on and beat a heavyweight. Or as mad and irresponsible
as Lord Raglan, who in 1854, in the Crimean War, ordered 673 cavalrymen on
horseback armed with just swords, to attack a mass of artillery guns, against
all the rules of warfare, that cavalry must never ever take on artillery in a
frontal attack. Raglan’s recklessness cost the lives of 156 men with 127
seriously wounded and 335 horses dying.
A French Marshall watching the charge exclaimed “C’est de la folie!” (It’s
madness!)
Mr Dick Turpin is perfectly entitled to
be happy to be living in Jersey. It appears that he can close his eyes and
ignore what is happening around him.
He ignores the very real social problems that exist in this Island where the gap
between the rich and the poor is getting even greater. Has he no concern for the
fact that property prices are now so high that it is impossible for any young
couple to afford to buy a house?
Is he not concerned that only half a mile from where he lives over 90 Jersey
families are living in States accommodation that has leaking windows and roofs
and where the damp is so bad that mould is growing on the walls inside?
They have been told that it will be at least three years before this can be
fixed, as it is going to cost £7 million. Does he think it is morally right that
people should be forced to live in these conditions when the Island has over
half a billion pounds in the bank?
Does he think it is right that people earning £150,000 a year should pay the
same rate of tax as someone earning £20,000?
Does he think it is right that Jersey companies that are not in the finance
industry (like Voisins) should pay 20 per cent tax on their profits when a UK
owned company (like de Gruchy) pays nothing?
Does he think it right that primary school children will no longer receive
school milk? Or that the hydrotherapy pool for the use of incapacitated people
and the physiotherapy department should be closed?
Does he think that a wait of six months for certain operations at the hospital
is acceptable?
These are just a small number of matters that make life in Jersey very difficult
for a lot of people – and a rise of two per cent in GST will make life even
harder for ordinary people when food costs are already 25 per cent higher than
the UK.
For Mr Turpin to suggest that we should compare ourselves with deprived
countries and be grateful that we do not live in those countries is extremely
simplistic. We live in Jersey and any comparison should be made with comparable
communities.
Mr Turpin complains about the fact that people like our president, Ted Vibert,
Deputy Geoff Southern, Nick Corbel and Deputy Tadier have been prepared to give
their time to highlight many of the wrongs within the Island.
They have not been alone. Large numbers of parents have attended protest
meetings about plans to cut grants to fee-paying schools, senior citizens have
attended meetings to protest about the rise in GST, teachers have rallied
because they are unhappy with things and large numbers of public sector workers
have turned out at meetings of protest about their treatment. Does that not give
Mr Turpin a message that a lot of people are unhappy?
Mr Turpin’s attitude to life in Jersey is akin to those tourists who visit
places like Manila in the Philippines, stay in plush five-star hotels and step
over people living in cardboard boxes without batting an eyelid.
And I commend to him the following quotation: ‘All that is necessary for the
triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’
Peter Body, the economics editor of the JEP,
commented on the JDA’s economic policy—and got it hopelessly wrong. Geoff wrote
to the JEP and put this right:
Although your Business Editor, Peter Body, and I often agree on economic
matters, I have to object to his portrayal of the JDA’s position on the deficit
as ‘spending can continue as before because you can always raise taxes’. That is
a far from accurate portrayal of our position.
In contrast to Senator Ozouf’s wilder theories: GST is not regressive; public
sector spending is too high; cutting jobs is a way to grow the economy, the JDA
takes a far more pragmatic and responsible view. Senator Ozouf was relying on
economic growth to fill between £20m and £30m of his zero/ten black hole. This
growth never arrived. In addition, we now have a cyclical downturn which adds
another £50m to the deficit.
The JDA believes that there are no concrete signs that we are out of the
recession. The last thing we should do is to make further cuts and to raise
taxes both of which will take money out of the economy and endanger the
recovery. We should certainly not make permanent changes in response to a
temporary downturn. Therefore we propose a freeze on GST and the use of some
£26m from the interest on the ‘rainy day’ fund to cover next year’s revenue
deficits.
If we are to increase taxes then any measures must be progressive. Those with
the broadest shoulders, the high earners and the wealthy 1(1)(k)s, should pay a
higher rate. Similarly the business sector, which has seen its tax rate halved
or reduced to zero, should also be asked to contribute its fair share of
taxation through registration fees or increased social security contributions.
The JDA is far from in denial about our revenue deficits, we simply have a
different set of solutions to protect ordinary working people and their families
from the worst effects of the recession.
1 Osborne Court St. Aubin's Road, Jersey
The Editor,
Jersey Evening Post,
Five Oaks
Jersey
Dear Sir,
So the cat is finally out of the bag.
What Senator Ozouf was saying a week ago - that the decision by the EU Council
on Business Taxation on Jersey’s zero ten - was only a minor matter- is shown to
be a complete nonsense.
The Council found that our zero-ten tax regime, which allows UK or foreign owned
companies to trade in Jersey without paying tax, whilst Jersey based companies
pay 20%, was “harmful” and non compliant with the EU Code of Conduct on Business
Tax.
Our advisors in Brussels and in the UK informed us that their inside information
was that the Code would be found to be non-complaint in that specific area.
They were 100% accurate and we issued a press release to that effect last week.
This produced a typical response from Senator Ozouf who tried to hide behind
financial gobbledegook to cover his embarrassment as well as calling me
irresponsible – a typical Senator Ozouf tactic of not dealing with the argument
but belittling his opponent.
A minor matter? Not according to Guernsey. Their government has accepted that
the Council findings that zero-ten represented harmful taxation” was the
unanimous view of the Council”.
They added: “It is understood that whilst the formal assessment has not
technically been concluded, the expectation is that the Crown dependencies will
be required to introduce revised corporate tax regimes”
Senator Ozouf says that he has a plan to tackle this “minor issue”. If it has
come from the same people who produced the zero- ten disaster I suggest we don’t
bother. It would be far more sensible to let Guernsey go and put their case and
follow them.. Even better, they could contact Mr. Richard Murphy of the Tax
Justice Network to vet anything the Senator comes up with. Events have shown
that they appear to have a much better handle on all of this than the Senator
Senator Ozouf will apparently be presenting his solution to this “minor matter”
in his budget speech. One thing you can count on - he will not be apologising to
the House for misleading Jersey over this zero-ten issue
Yours sincerely,
Ted Vibert
Jersey Democratic Alliance
1
Osborne Court, St. Aubin's Road, First Tower St. Helier
Dear Sir,
Mr. John Boothman, in
his letter (27 November). feels that we are stepping back in time to the
politics of 2005, as if this is something regrettable. Five years is hardly a
long time in the history of this island. He goes on to talk about left wing
demonstrators, personal insults, threats and bluster. Perhaps he can
produce evidence of “threats and personal insults”.
He recalls the launch of the JDA with its “nihilistic policies” and the
“vindictive campaign it waged against so-called establishment figures”. Perhaps
he will enlighten your readers with examples of any evidence of a “vindictive
campaign we launched against establishment figures” or any policy in our
manifesto that can remotely be described as “nihilistic”.
In his letter, he tells me that I should choose my allies more carefully. This
is typical of his group of patronising, superior, smug and condescending people
who believe they have a right to direct who I choose to be my friend or ally. I
thought that “born to rule” went out of fashion 60 years ago.
I mentioned that he was a banker to inform the public that because of his
background in banking his strenuous defence of the finance industry was
understandable.
His banking career has been formidable and one of which he can be justly proud.
He joined Morgan Grenfell (Jersey) Ltd as a graduate trainee at the age of 20.
Over the years he rose through the ranks and in 1993 was made managing director
of the bank, which had become Deutsch Morgan Grenfell ( now Deutsch Bank
International) He retired in 2002.
However, he remained executive chairman of Aztec Financial Services Ltd (private
equity fund administrators), non-executive director Lyxor group of companies
(multi- class hedge fund structure), non executive director of Acorn Income Fund
Ltd (close-ended Guernsey listed investment trust investing in equities and
bonds), non executive director of Beau Vallet Investments Ltd and Soubiler
Investments 2002-2005(subsidiaries of a UK multi- national investing in money
market investments).
In 2002-2005 he was a Commissioner on the Jersey Appointments Commission and
from.1999-2004 he served on the States of Jersey Audit Committee and from
2006-2009 he was a States appointed Commissioner on the Jersey Financial
Services Commission, which regulates the islands finance industry.
He is currently chairman of Jersey Telecom, which is owned by the States.
It is clear from this published career detail that Mr. Boothman must inevitably
have a strong network of friends and colleagues within the “established
government” and he fools no one by protesting that he doesn’t. All of his mates
in the Institute of Directors, the Chamber of Commerce, the Trust Association
are all locked into the establishment and walk to the same tune. It is in his
interest to do so - and I have no problem with that.
I was interested to read that he opposed zero-ten. However, his opposition was
based on the fact that Jersey had had no say in the matter (because we are a
Crown dependency) whereas my opposition is because it has cost the people of
Jersey £100 million, and is unfair on Jersey based companies (other than banks
and finance houses) whose shareholders/owners have to pay 20% tax whilst foreign
owned companies (other than banks and finance houses) pay nothing at all.
He claims that that my support for the finance industry is paper thin- citing
what he calls my “gloating” reference about telling voters at the next election
about what the finance industry has cost the island. This was written in the
context of meeting Mr. Boothman in a debate where I said he could tell islanders
the good things that have come from the industry and I could balance the picture
by outlining the harm it has done.
I am happy to meet Mr. Boothman on any platform anywhere to debate this issue
and I issue this challenge to him.
To suggest that this approach means that the JDA opposes the finance industry is
immature. Our policy on the finance industry is in our manifesto and is very
clear. It says: “The JDA fully supports the continued development of an ethical
and well-regulated finance industry. It is, after all, the main driver of our
success.” Could we make intentions any clearer than that . Unlike his political
friends, we keep our election promises.
Finally, the preposterously arrogant Mr. Boothman claims that the JDA is not the
organisation to “represent the needy and disadvantaged and see that they get a
better deal”. This, apparently, is because of our “venomous rhetoric, seething
prejudices and quack remedies”
Coming from a man who has never lifted a finger, politically speaking, to help
the” disadvantaged or the needy” or to create a fair and just society I am sure
this comment will give the people of Jersey their laugh of the week.
Yours sincerely,
Ted Vibert
President
Jersey Democratic Alliance
1 Osborne Court
La route de la St Aubin,
First Tower,
St Helier
JE2 3SD
Tel: M: 077978 46764
Home: 01534 625591
Email: tedvibert@gmail.com
Dear Sir,
In a States debate yesterday Senator Sarah Ferguson was most dismissive - and in
my view highly disrespectful- of the late Sir Cecil Clothier (he died in 2009
aged 90) who headed up what was known as the Clothier Panel into the machinery
of government in Jersey in 1998- 2000.
She said that he had proposed nothing more than an English style council which
was not surprising seeing that he was “ just a civil servant” Only Deputy Roy Le
Herrisier interjected to say the he was not a civil servant but Senator Ferguson
insisted that she was right and was supported by another member
Because the panel’s report became known simply as “Clothier”, the impression has
grown that the late Sir Cecil worked on his own and simply recommended to Jersey
a system of government based on an English council By her statements in the
House, Senator Ferguson continues to perpetuate this total inaccuracy.
The facts are these.
Sir Cecil Clothier was NEVER a civil servant.
Born in Liverpool, he won a scholarship to Lincoln College Oxford (he was
elected an honorary fellow to that College in 1984)but after only one year he
joined the Army and rose to lieutenant Colonel in the51st (highland) Divisional
Signals, fighting at El Alamein and in Sicily. In 1944 he was posted to
Washington as part of the British Army staff
After the war, he studied law and in 1950 was called to the Bar by the inner
temple and took silk in 1965 and was called to the bench in 1973. On his death a
colleague recalled: “ He had a masterly command of technical matters and had a
wide practice at the bar in personal injury, professional negligence and
commercial law with occasional forays into corporate crime”. He rose steadily
through the legal profession, became Recorder of Blackpool, a deputy Crown Court
judge and an appeal court judge on the Isle of Man. In1972 he was a member of
the Commission inquiring into the NHS and in 1979 he became Britain’s first
Ombudsman as well as Health Service Commissioner dealing with public complaints.
In this role, he commented that three-quarters of complaints about doctors and
medical services were justified
As Britain’s Ombudsman he gained a reputation of supporting the “little man”
against the might of bureaucracy. He controlled a staff of 60 specialists who
carried out detailed studies of official documents, many of them unavailable
even to MPS and once told a meeting that his investigative powers “are as good
as you will get in a democracy –the next best thing to the rack”.
He later became the outspoken chairman of the Police Complaints Authority and in
1982 was appointed KCB.
He was not working on his own when he came to Jersey in 1998 to begin the work
of reporting on the machinery of government in Jersey . His panel consisted of
Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, KCB, Professor Michael Clarke,CBE DL, Mr. John Henwood,
MBE, Dr. John Kelleher, Mr. David Le Quesne, Mrs. Anne Perchard, Mr. Colin
Powell, OBE and Sir Maurice Shock .They received 196 submissions and held many
public hearings.
I doubt if a panel of people appointed to look into a Jersey problem containing
so much brain power, legal, world and local knowledge, has ever been assembled.
The tragedy for democracy in Jersey is that their main recommendations to remove
Senators, Deputies and Constables and replacing them with 44 single class of
member(called Member of the States of Jersey-MOJ) elected on roughly parish
lines and setting up an Electoral Commission with a fully staffed office to be
responsible for all electoral matters including a centralised electoral
register) were never acted upon. You have to wonder why
For Senator Ferguson to dismiss this talented, dedicated and courageous man of
whom the Daily Telegraph said: “he won a reputation as a man of scrupulous
integrity and devotion to duty as “he was just a civil servant” and ignore the
contribution made by all other members of the panel is disgraceful and I hope
she will have the good grace to apologise to the House when next it meets for
this totally misleading description.
Yours sincerely.
Ted Vibert
President Jersey Democratic Alliance
1 Osborne Court, La Route de St.
Aubin, First Tower St. Helier
KEEPING THEIR ELECTORAL PROMISES
Dear Sir,
The mark of a politician of honesty and integrity is how they keep their
election promises. Those who don’t hope that, over the passage of time, the
electorate will forget what they promised at election time. It is the job of
vigilant islanders to constantly remind the electorate when a politician
fails utterly to keep his election promise on issues
So here’s a reminder. Who said 3 years ago on his election: “I promise a
different approach. We need much more concentration on social policy from
the next Council of Ministers”
“We have to be more caring,. greener and seen to be less about the economy
and more about social policies.
“There is a widening gap between the haves and the have- nots. I think my
talents can best be harnessed on the financial side and make the States more
responsive to supporting the benefits system.
“There has to be a radical re-think of the make- up of the faces on the
Council of Ministers so that it is more reflective of the views of the
electorate.”
I don’t think many readers would have got it.
It was non-other than our Treasury Minister Senator Philip Ozouf, the
driving force behind policies that has widened even more the gap between
Jersey’s “haves” and “have-nots”. His policies have angered parents, whose
children are at fee paying schools, sportsmen and women who will lose their
funding to go away and take part in competitions, public sector workers who
face redundancies, the sick who have lost medical facilities at the
Hospital, postal workers who are losing their jobs, ordinary hard working
Jersey people who face rising bills for everything and now face a 2% hike in
GST, and children at school who have lost their school milk.
Caring? Greener? Less about economics and more about social policies?
Your readers can make up their own mind about the political integrity of our
Treasury Minister.
Yours sincerely,
Ted Vibert
President Jersey Democratic Alliance
1 Osborne Court
La route de la St Aubin,
First Tower,
St Helier
JE2 3SD
Tel: M: 077978 46764
Home: 01534 625591
Email:
tedvibert@gmail.com
Dear Sir,
Why is it that every time someone criticises the JDA and
our policies they totally misrepresent us?
Mr. Gerald Voisin (19 September) has done just that by saying that I have
claimed “that it is acceptable for States expenditure to increase dramatically
over the past ten years or so, after all, its not much more than the annual
increase in the cost of living and it’s not really a problem.”
That has never been our position
What I have done is try and put States expenditure in a proper perspective to
counter the scare-mongering of the Treasury Minister and the Small Society and
explain why the cost of running the island has risen so much in the last ten
years.
When the Small Society pointed out that the cost of running Jersey had risen by
75% in ten years, I argued that this was very misleading because it failed to
take into account t that inflation in that ten years was 38%. This meant that
the cost of running Jersey in real terms had gone up 38% or 3.8% a year- hardly
a recipe for a “bloated society”
I also pointed out that the population of Jersey had risen by 8,000 in the last
ten years which adds costs to all departments of the States, especially health
and education...
I also pointed out that the biggest difference in running the States of Jersey
in the last ten years has been the move to ministerial government. As an
example, Scrutiny is now costing £1.2 million a year. Ministerial government has
also seen the introduction of a whole raft of departments mainly dealing with
the Finance industry.
These costs are
economic and international finance £1.6 million
corporate projects £1.9million
infrastructure £3.1 million
business support groups £3.1 million
protection of Jersey’s finance industry £400,000`
Jersey Finance Ltd £2.4 million
This is a total of £12 million expenditure purely on the finance industry which
was not incurred in 2000.
Then there’s the £4 million spent on the agricultural industry restructuring the
dairy industry, giving grants to farmers for environmental work and helping
farmers cope with the changes taking place in their industry.- We spent £7.5
million on tourism promotion. This was an 11% increase in just one year. The
finance sector’s budget was up 21% in one year.
It is interesting to note that the three industries which received the most in
States grants make up the major part of the membership of the Small Society
screaming for cuts in States expenditure-prov ided it doesn’t affect them.
What I have consistently argued is that Jersey’s public sector is not “bloated”.
It is more efficient than any of our neighbours and competitors We spend less on
our government as a proportion of our GDP than any of them or any OECD country.
The comparisons are:
Isle of Man 33%
Guernsey 22%
Jersey 17%
That is what I have been arguing.
I also take issue with Mr. Voisin on why we are facing this deficit. It is not
just because we spend too much. It is because our revenue is down. And he admits
that this is due to the zero ten tax structure which he supported when he was a
States Deputy . If it is a case that we must reduce our expenditure- and I don’t
believe it is-I think this should be done fairly. How can anyone support
removing school milk from the agenda saving £183,000 yet still allow the States
to give St. Michaels School £402,000, St. Georges School £189,000 and the
Convent £463,000 of taxpayers money. These schools, generally speaking, educate
the children of wealthy residents who don’t wish their children to mix with
ordinary kids at States schools. They are entitled to make that choice but
should the tax-payer pay anything towards that decision?. Why were their funds
considered more important that any of the cuts made to school milk or the health
budget?
When it comes to the alternative of putting up taxes, Mr. Voisin jumps on the
Small Society bandwagon and trots out the hoary old argument that if we put up
taxes, banks and finance houses will leave the island as will wealthy residents.
He produces no evidence at all of this, of course, because no proper research
has ever been carried out. It’s the typical scaremongering of the Establishment
and it’s getting tiresome
Yours sincerely,
Ted Vibert
President Jersey Democratic Alliance
I Believe my Actions are Appropriate and
Timely
Letter to Jersey Evening Post
Geoff Southern 9th June 2010
The careful reader of Ben Quérée’s column (JEP, 8 Jun) would
draw the clear implication that my motives in bringing a motion of no confidence
in the Chief Minister were solely based on opportunistic electioneering.
Such an accusation would be fair, but mistaken, if coming from a rival
candidate, but totally inappropriate when expressed in the Island’s only
newspaper about one of nine candidates in a by-election. I am grateful therefore
to the Editor for granting me this right to reply.
Ben Quérée appears to have a limited grasp of the realities of political life.
To oppose and defeat a major piece of the Council of Ministers’ policy, no
matter how ill-thought out and badly constructed, requires enormous efforts.
The argument and debate will go on to September, and will pre-empt the budget
decisions in December. It is not just a case of turning up and giving a speech
on the day. The weaknesses and flaws need to be aired early and often in order
to allow them to be firmly established.
The fact is there is no political coherence to the Comprehensive Spending
Review. In the absence of a strategic agreement among ministers, and with no
consultation with front line workers, it has been left to chief officers and
senior mangers to produce the two per cent savings.
The States still has no evidence of what the full cuts (ten per cent or £50m
savings) will look like. Neither do we have any idea of what alternative tax
changes might be acceptable to mitigate the cuts. We are making decisions in the
dark.
An early and full debate on the overall strategic vision of the Council of
Ministers in the serious context of a no confidence debate is, I believe,
legitimate. What has happened so often in the past is that some individual parts
of the package will get picked off by Members and defeated but the main body of
measures will get bulldozed through.
Scrutiny will do its best, in the rushed timescale required, but it cannot amass
the required evidence of the harm that these savage cuts will do to the
workforce and to the most vulnerable in society. Scrutiny is in any case often
ignored.
I have brought over 80 propositions, including votes of no confidence, to the
States in my time and I know that timing is critical.
The CSR debate needs to be had now, before it is firmly established as the only
option. A no confidence debate, whatever the outcome, will set the context for
the long campaign to come on this, the most serious issue which has come to the
States in recent times. It will affect the quality of life of all residents for
years to come. I maintain that my actions are appropriate, timely and based on
long-held promises to protect public services.
On this page:
Time to adopt all Clothier Report recommendations from Geoff Southern
From Nick le Cornu - The Bailiff should just be the island's Chief Judge
The Decision on Zero-Ten was no minor matter Senator but a bombshell! from Pat Lucas
Don't turn a blind eye to what is happening from Christine Papworth
Peter Body Gets it Wrong and Geoff Puts it Right
The cat's out of the bag Senator
Reply to Mr John Boothman's letter to the JEP of 27th November
Gerald Voisin re misrepresentation of the JDA
Sarah Ferguson re lack of understanding of Cecil Clothier
The Keeping of Electoral Promises
From Geoff Southern re last election
Time to Adopt all Clothier Report Recommendations
January 7, 2011
From Deputy Geoff Southern.
Well, you turn your back for a few days and all sorts of nasty creatures come out of the woodwork.
In this case, over the Christmas break, no sooner were the lights turned out in the States Chamber than there was an outbreak of conservatives scurrying around to preserve the status quo and desperate to turn back any vestige of democratic reform.
The States recently voted to begin the tentative process of reform of the States Assembly which has lain neglected for over a decade. Clothier was cherry-picked by ministers for their own ends.
Recently, however, members voted to reduce the number of Senators by two. The ‘no change’ party sent up howls of anguish: ‘Save the Senators’, ‘Protect the Constables’. And then they went on the attack: ‘Destroy the Deputies’ and finally ‘Beat up the backbenchers’.
Senator Paul Routier was in the vanguard with a straightforward attack on the ability of all non-executive members to represent their constituents and to bring propositions to the States.
He seems to want a parliament where the only business is the rubber-stamping of whatever a minister chooses to bring to the States. Recently many backbenchers have actually started to get political. They bring their own propositions and have the temerity to argue with ministers.
‘We can’t have that!’ says Senator Routier. ‘Let’s increase the lodging time for backbencher propositions, and insist that any proposal has seven signatures before it is lodged. That will slow them down. While we’re at it, we can reduce the time allowed for any backbencher to speak in a debate. That way we can get decisions wrong more quickly.’
Then we had contributions from Senators Cohen and Ferguson. They have both leapt to the defence of that endangered species … the Senator. Senator Cohen is the mildest, with a proposal for a referendum on the reduction of senators from 12 to eight. Senator Ferguson (clearly not acting out of self-interest but purely from altruistic motives) takes a harder line, demanding that the decision to reduce the number of senators be reversed.
Then to cap it all, into the fray charges Deputy Eddie Noel, who has never brought a back bench proposition, but appears to constantly await instructions on his Blackberry from his political masters, with a cunning plan.
‘Let’s reduce the number of deputies from 29 to 21!’ This reduces the representation of St Helier, with a third of the population, down to seven. It leaves the Assembly with its Constables and Senators providing an overwhelming conservative majority.
Despite their best efforts the fact is that there must be reform if we are to have a viable and responsive democracy in the Island. The way to achieve this democratic representation was outlined by Sir Cecil Clothier back in 2000. He said:
• The role of Senator should be abolished.
• The Constables should cease to be ex-officio members of the States.
• The Bailiff should no longer preside over the States Assembly.
• There should be one General Election every four years.
• There should be a single central register of voters.
The time has come to follow through with the full package of reforms contained in the Clothier report. Reform Jersey will pursue this agenda to achieve responsible and accountable government.
The Bailiff Should Just be the Island's Chief Judge
December 30, 2010
From Nick Le Cornu
Lord Carswell’s report into the role of the Crown Officers is a timid republican document.
Its central recommendation that the Bailiff merely no longer preside as speaker of the States Assembly, is carefully crafted to the expediency of what is palatable to faint hearted States Members. The report fails, as it should, to recommend the creation of three distinct institutions, that of civic head, speaker of the legislature and senior Judge, unencumbered by multiple post holding by one person. They will come because these are the hallmarks of modern western democratic political systems.
Much of the defence of the status quo is by reference to heritage and tradition. This is simply myth making. Who can name a Bailiff pre-1940 let alone list two of his achievements?
Hanging on to the status quo is just not an option. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights clearly endorses the traditional concept of the separation of powers; that the three functions of government – legislative, executive and judicial – should be conferred to a separate body or authority, so that no individual should be a member of more than one of them.
Sooner or later the present arrangements will fall foul of a critical legal judgment. The British government will exercise its authority, as it did over the constitution of Sark, to effect change, leading to inevitable humiliation for the Island. Jersey’s political class is rapidly becoming a liability because they cannot recognise when change is necessary, preferring bull headed obstinacy to pragmatism.
In his recent interview with the BBC, Sir Philip Bailhache remarked: ‘If the Bailiff is no longer President of the States, a chain of reaction will begin and as night follows day that will change the constitutional arrangements for ever and the Bailiff will no longer be the civic head of the Island and something I believe will have been lost.’ One could easily dismiss such remarks as reactionary and apocalyptic – Après moi le déluge. I believe he is prescient in pointing out that once change begins it will not stop. Sir Philip is also correct to warn against retaining the Bailiff as civic head yet having an elected president of the States Assembly. This sweet compromise will crumble to dust. The choice he presents as one between irreversible change or the status quo, is really one between embracing modernity or preservation of the Ancien Régime. The day of democratic reckoning is close.
Sir Philip likens reforming the Bailiff’s role to that of abolishing constitutional monarchy. Curiously he suggests that the issue be put in the form of a referendum. Why this democratic gesture? Ought Louis XVI to have consulted the People if he could remain King when his ancestors had ruled France for 200 years? Perhaps we should be reminded of the words of Saint-Just in his speech to the Convention in 1792 that a king ‘doit régner ou mourir… On ne peut point régner innocemment.’ The real reason the political class favours a referendum is that they know they can easily win given there is 80% electoral abstention. It is not an acknowledgement of popular sovereignty, more a cynical manoeuvre of managing public opinion to endorse elite interests. Needless to say, a referendum in which only 20% vote does not confer legitimacy.
It is evident that the Jersey polity is a blocked one, with Crown Officers and a section of the States Assembly, being not just hostile to democratic reforms but intellectually bereft of their necessity. At stake is the issue of power. The political elite recognise their authority is insecure resting as it does on an indecent handful of votes from the wealthy in an electoral system designed to exclude participation.
Sir Philip’s conduct in entering the political arena on this issue personifies precisely what it wrong with the present system. He may be an ex-Bailiff, but he comments whilst still a serving judge in the Jersey Court of Appeal. He also alludes enigmatically in his interview (JEP, 18 December) to a possible future political career.
Does this mean he will replace the white cockade of monarchy with that of the tricoleur, and step forth into the democratic era as Citizen Bailhache? Aux urnes citoyens.
The Decision on Zero-Ten was no minor matter Senator but a bombshell! from Pat Lucas
22nd December 2010
Dear Sir,
While I realise that the view put forward by Mr. Brewers that we should not allow ourselves to be bullied by the EU ( 21 December) is shared by many people, his reasoning was far from clear as he appears to agree with the JDA ( and most other people of Jersey) that zero-ten is causing our financial problems and should be scrapped. That is also the view of the EU Council on the Code of Conduct on Corporate Taxation who are of the view that the zero-ten situation is “harmful taxation” and therefore not complaint with their Code of Conduct
Jersey and the other Crown dependencies have no alternative but to abide by this Code if we wish to do business on an international scale. As an analogy let’s take the air line business .
If Jersey fails to comply with the international regulations governing air traffic, aircraft leaving the Island could be barred from landing at any airport controlled by this organisation, which means most airports around the world. We recently had to re-fence our entire airport perimeter at considerable cost because the old one failed their standards- and there was simply no alternative.
Jersey’s situation was perfectly explained in the 2004 Fiscal Strategy Document presented to the States by the Finance Committee headed by the then Senator Frank Walker. This document contained the arguments used to explain why zero-ten had to be introduced to replace the Exempt Company situation, the rock on which Jersey’s financial position was built.
The EU had decided that this Exempt Company tax regime was in breach of the EU code of Conduct and the States replaced it with zero-ten. Back then there were people clamouring for Jersey to stand up and fight for our constitutional rights and tell the EU to keep out of our affairs, why were we not standing up for our constitutional rights?
The Fiscal Report of 2004 covered this at some length and it is worth reminding those Islanders who want to get “bolshie” and look for a fight with the EU and the UK Treasury that this is what was said at that time.
“Jersey is positioned on the periphery of the European Union and conducts much trade with it and derives significant opportunities from such positioning to develop financial service and other business with EU nationals. A policy which contemplates not just isolationism in this respect, but also one which would have the effect of undermining the EU Code of Conduct exercise with attendant damage to the UK relationship with its EU partners, would seem again to represent a very high-risk approach.
The United Kingdom is determined to ensure compliance by its dependent territories with the EU Code of Conduct with similar pressure faced by Guernsey and the Isle of Man in this respect. Although there are constitutional arguments to invoke to resist this, Jersey has already seen the UK prepared to contemplate a highly pressurised approach to forcing this compliance with threats of unilateral action by them against the island to achieve such an outcome should the island ignore the Code of Conduct requests.
One such measure would be the revocation of the exemptions permitted to island businesses within the UK’s Controlled Foreign Companies legislation. Such revocation would have a rapid and detrimental tax impact on all UK-owned businesses in the island and would probably force them to re-evaluate their options for representation on the island over time. Where this would create most immediate concern would be in the banking sector with a handful of UK-owned banks accounting for a very high share of the direct tax revenues and 50% of the island’s financial services workforce.
There are other areas where the UK could take unilateral economic actions with severe consequences for Jersey, such as in withdrawing existing double tax exemptions and the possible implementation of withholding taxes on inter-bank deposits by Jersey-based institutions into the UK.
All such measures are potentially serious for any large UK-owned business, particularly in financial services, in the Island. Therefore, they do not represent an acceptable basis of risk if our policies were to invite their implementation or even threat, recognising that business cannot function well in the face of uncertainty and attendant adverse economic decision making.”
That is Jersey’s position in a nutshell as put by the Finance Committee of 2004 - and nothing has changed since then.
Those who wish to get into a fight with the mighty tank that is the EU and the UK Treasury armed with just a .303 rifle are as deluded as a featherweight boxer who believes he can take on and beat a heavyweight. Or as mad and irresponsible as Lord Raglan, who in 1854, in the Crimean War, ordered 673 cavalrymen on horseback armed with just swords, to attack a mass of artillery guns, against all the rules of warfare, that cavalry must never ever take on artillery in a frontal attack. Raglan’s recklessness cost the lives of 156 men with 127 seriously wounded and 335 horses dying.
A French Marshall watching the charge exclaimed “C’est de la folie!” (It’s madness!)
Let us not make that same mistake...
Pat Lucas
Don’t turn a blind eye to what is happening
From Christine Papworth, Chairman, Jersey Democratic Alliance.
Mr Dick Turpin is perfectly entitled to be happy to be living in Jersey. It appears that he can close his eyes and ignore what is happening around him.
He ignores the very real social problems that exist in this Island where the gap between the rich and the poor is getting even greater. Has he no concern for the fact that property prices are now so high that it is impossible for any young couple to afford to buy a house?
Is he not concerned that only half a mile from where he lives over 90 Jersey families are living in States accommodation that has leaking windows and roofs and where the damp is so bad that mould is growing on the walls inside?
They have been told that it will be at least three years before this can be fixed, as it is going to cost £7 million. Does he think it is morally right that people should be forced to live in these conditions when the Island has over half a billion pounds in the bank?
Does he think it is right that people earning £150,000 a year should pay the same rate of tax as someone earning £20,000?
Does he think it is right that Jersey companies that are not in the finance industry (like Voisins) should pay 20 per cent tax on their profits when a UK owned company (like de Gruchy) pays nothing?
Does he think it right that primary school children will no longer receive school milk? Or that the hydrotherapy pool for the use of incapacitated people and the physiotherapy department should be closed?
Does he think that a wait of six months for certain operations at the hospital is acceptable?
These are just a small number of matters that make life in Jersey very difficult for a lot of people – and a rise of two per cent in GST will make life even harder for ordinary people when food costs are already 25 per cent higher than the UK.
For Mr Turpin to suggest that we should compare ourselves with deprived countries and be grateful that we do not live in those countries is extremely simplistic. We live in Jersey and any comparison should be made with comparable communities.
Mr Turpin complains about the fact that people like our president, Ted Vibert, Deputy Geoff Southern, Nick Corbel and Deputy Tadier have been prepared to give their time to highlight many of the wrongs within the Island.
They have not been alone. Large numbers of parents have attended protest meetings about plans to cut grants to fee-paying schools, senior citizens have attended meetings to protest about the rise in GST, teachers have rallied because they are unhappy with things and large numbers of public sector workers have turned out at meetings of protest about their treatment. Does that not give Mr Turpin a message that a lot of people are unhappy?
Mr Turpin’s attitude to life in Jersey is akin to those tourists who visit places like Manila in the Philippines, stay in plush five-star hotels and step over people living in cardboard boxes without batting an eyelid.
And I commend to him the following quotation: ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’
PETER BODY OF THE JEP GETS IT WRONG AND GEOFF PUTS HIM RIGHT
From Geoff Southern
Peter Body, the economics editor of the JEP, commented on the JDA’s economic policy—and got it hopelessly wrong. Geoff wrote to the JEP and put this right:
Although your Business Editor, Peter Body, and I often agree on economic matters, I have to object to his portrayal of the JDA’s position on the deficit as ‘spending can continue as before because you can always raise taxes’. That is a far from accurate portrayal of our position.
In contrast to Senator Ozouf’s wilder theories: GST is not regressive; public sector spending is too high; cutting jobs is a way to grow the economy, the JDA takes a far more pragmatic and responsible view. Senator Ozouf was relying on economic growth to fill between £20m and £30m of his zero/ten black hole. This growth never arrived. In addition, we now have a cyclical downturn which adds another £50m to the deficit.
The JDA believes that there are no concrete signs that we are out of the recession. The last thing we should do is to make further cuts and to raise taxes both of which will take money out of the economy and endanger the recovery. We should certainly not make permanent changes in response to a temporary downturn. Therefore we propose a freeze on GST and the use of some £26m from the interest on the ‘rainy day’ fund to cover next year’s revenue deficits.
If we are to increase taxes then any measures must be progressive. Those with the broadest shoulders, the high earners and the wealthy 1(1)(k)s, should pay a higher rate. Similarly the business sector, which has seen its tax rate halved or reduced to zero, should also be asked to contribute its fair share of taxation through registration fees or increased social security contributions.
The JDA is far from in denial about our revenue deficits, we simply have a different set of solutions to protect ordinary working people and their families from the worst effects of the recession.
1 Osborne Court St. Aubin's Road, Jersey
The Editor,
Jersey Evening Post,
Five Oaks
Jersey
Dear Sir,
So the cat is finally out of the bag. What Senator Ozouf was saying a week ago - that the decision by the EU Council on Business Taxation on Jersey’s zero ten - was only a minor matter- is shown to be a complete nonsense.
The Council found that our zero-ten tax regime, which allows UK or foreign owned companies to trade in Jersey without paying tax, whilst Jersey based companies pay 20%, was “harmful” and non compliant with the EU Code of Conduct on Business Tax.
Our advisors in Brussels and in the UK informed us that their inside information was that the Code would be found to be non-complaint in that specific area. They were 100% accurate and we issued a press release to that effect last week. This produced a typical response from Senator Ozouf who tried to hide behind financial gobbledegook to cover his embarrassment as well as calling me irresponsible – a typical Senator Ozouf tactic of not dealing with the argument but belittling his opponent.
A minor matter? Not according to Guernsey. Their government has accepted that the Council findings that zero-ten represented harmful taxation” was the unanimous view of the Council”.
They added: “It is understood that whilst the formal assessment has not technically been concluded, the expectation is that the Crown dependencies will be required to introduce revised corporate tax regimes”
Senator Ozouf says that he has a plan to tackle this “minor issue”. If it has come from the same people who produced the zero- ten disaster I suggest we don’t bother. It would be far more sensible to let Guernsey go and put their case and follow them.. Even better, they could contact Mr. Richard Murphy of the Tax Justice Network to vet anything the Senator comes up with. Events have shown that they appear to have a much better handle on all of this than the Senator
Senator Ozouf will apparently be presenting his solution to this “minor matter” in his budget speech. One thing you can count on - he will not be apologising to the House for misleading Jersey over this zero-ten issue
Yours sincerely,
Ted Vibert
Jersey Democratic Alliance
1 Osborne Court, St. Aubin's Road, First Tower St. Helier
Dear Sir,
Mr. John Boothman, in his letter (27 November). feels that we are stepping back in time to the politics of 2005, as if this is something regrettable. Five years is hardly a long time in the history of this island. He goes on to talk about left wing demonstrators, personal insults, threats and bluster. Perhaps he can produce evidence of “threats and personal insults”.
He recalls the launch of the JDA with its “nihilistic policies” and the “vindictive campaign it waged against so-called establishment figures”. Perhaps he will enlighten your readers with examples of any evidence of a “vindictive campaign we launched against establishment figures” or any policy in our manifesto that can remotely be described as “nihilistic”.
In his letter, he tells me that I should choose my allies more carefully. This is typical of his group of patronising, superior, smug and condescending people who believe they have a right to direct who I choose to be my friend or ally. I thought that “born to rule” went out of fashion 60 years ago.
I mentioned that he was a banker to inform the public that because of his background in banking his strenuous defence of the finance industry was understandable.
His banking career has been formidable and one of which he can be justly proud. He joined Morgan Grenfell (Jersey) Ltd as a graduate trainee at the age of 20. Over the years he rose through the ranks and in 1993 was made managing director of the bank, which had become Deutsch Morgan Grenfell ( now Deutsch Bank International) He retired in 2002.
However, he remained executive chairman of Aztec Financial Services Ltd (private equity fund administrators), non-executive director Lyxor group of companies (multi- class hedge fund structure), non executive director of Acorn Income Fund Ltd (close-ended Guernsey listed investment trust investing in equities and bonds), non executive director of Beau Vallet Investments Ltd and Soubiler Investments 2002-2005(subsidiaries of a UK multi- national investing in money market investments).
In 2002-2005 he was a Commissioner on the Jersey Appointments Commission and from.1999-2004 he served on the States of Jersey Audit Committee and from 2006-2009 he was a States appointed Commissioner on the Jersey Financial Services Commission, which regulates the islands finance industry.
He is currently chairman of Jersey Telecom, which is owned by the States.
It is clear from this published career detail that Mr. Boothman must inevitably have a strong network of friends and colleagues within the “established government” and he fools no one by protesting that he doesn’t. All of his mates in the Institute of Directors, the Chamber of Commerce, the Trust Association are all locked into the establishment and walk to the same tune. It is in his interest to do so - and I have no problem with that.
I was interested to read that he opposed zero-ten. However, his opposition was based on the fact that Jersey had had no say in the matter (because we are a Crown dependency) whereas my opposition is because it has cost the people of Jersey £100 million, and is unfair on Jersey based companies (other than banks and finance houses) whose shareholders/owners have to pay 20% tax whilst foreign owned companies (other than banks and finance houses) pay nothing at all.
He claims that that my support for the finance industry is paper thin- citing what he calls my “gloating” reference about telling voters at the next election about what the finance industry has cost the island. This was written in the context of meeting Mr. Boothman in a debate where I said he could tell islanders the good things that have come from the industry and I could balance the picture by outlining the harm it has done.
I am happy to meet Mr. Boothman on any platform anywhere to debate this issue and I issue this challenge to him.
To suggest that this approach means that the JDA opposes the finance industry is immature. Our policy on the finance industry is in our manifesto and is very clear. It says: “The JDA fully supports the continued development of an ethical and well-regulated finance industry. It is, after all, the main driver of our success.” Could we make intentions any clearer than that . Unlike his political friends, we keep our election promises.
Finally, the preposterously arrogant Mr. Boothman claims that the JDA is not the organisation to “represent the needy and disadvantaged and see that they get a better deal”. This, apparently, is because of our “venomous rhetoric, seething prejudices and quack remedies”
Coming from a man who has never lifted a finger, politically speaking, to help the” disadvantaged or the needy” or to create a fair and just society I am sure this comment will give the people of Jersey their laugh of the week.
Yours sincerely,
Ted Vibert
President
Jersey Democratic Alliance
1 Osborne Court
La route de la St Aubin, First Tower, St Helier JE2 3SD
Tel: M: 077978 46764 Home: 01534 625591 Email: tedvibert@gmail.com
Dear Sir,
In a States debate yesterday Senator Sarah Ferguson was most dismissive - and in my view highly disrespectful- of the late Sir Cecil Clothier (he died in 2009 aged 90) who headed up what was known as the Clothier Panel into the machinery of government in Jersey in 1998- 2000.
She said that he had proposed nothing more than an English style council which was not surprising seeing that he was “ just a civil servant” Only Deputy Roy Le Herrisier interjected to say the he was not a civil servant but Senator Ferguson insisted that she was right and was supported by another member
Because the panel’s report became known simply as “Clothier”, the impression has grown that the late Sir Cecil worked on his own and simply recommended to Jersey a system of government based on an English council By her statements in the House, Senator Ferguson continues to perpetuate this total inaccuracy.
The facts are these.
Sir Cecil Clothier was NEVER a civil servant.
Born in Liverpool, he won a scholarship to Lincoln College Oxford (he was elected an honorary fellow to that College in 1984)but after only one year he joined the Army and rose to lieutenant Colonel in the51st (highland) Divisional Signals, fighting at El Alamein and in Sicily. In 1944 he was posted to Washington as part of the British Army staff
After the war, he studied law and in 1950 was called to the Bar by the inner temple and took silk in 1965 and was called to the bench in 1973. On his death a colleague recalled: “ He had a masterly command of technical matters and had a wide practice at the bar in personal injury, professional negligence and commercial law with occasional forays into corporate crime”. He rose steadily through the legal profession, became Recorder of Blackpool, a deputy Crown Court judge and an appeal court judge on the Isle of Man. In1972 he was a member of the Commission inquiring into the NHS and in 1979 he became Britain’s first Ombudsman as well as Health Service Commissioner dealing with public complaints.
In this role, he commented that three-quarters of complaints about doctors and medical services were justified
As Britain’s Ombudsman he gained a reputation of supporting the “little man” against the might of bureaucracy. He controlled a staff of 60 specialists who carried out detailed studies of official documents, many of them unavailable even to MPS and once told a meeting that his investigative powers “are as good as you will get in a democracy –the next best thing to the rack”.
He later became the outspoken chairman of the Police Complaints Authority and in 1982 was appointed KCB.
He was not working on his own when he came to Jersey in 1998 to begin the work of reporting on the machinery of government in Jersey . His panel consisted of Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, KCB, Professor Michael Clarke,CBE DL, Mr. John Henwood, MBE, Dr. John Kelleher, Mr. David Le Quesne, Mrs. Anne Perchard, Mr. Colin Powell, OBE and Sir Maurice Shock .They received 196 submissions and held many public hearings.
I doubt if a panel of people appointed to look into a Jersey problem containing so much brain power, legal, world and local knowledge, has ever been assembled.
The tragedy for democracy in Jersey is that their main recommendations to remove Senators, Deputies and Constables and replacing them with 44 single class of member(called Member of the States of Jersey-MOJ) elected on roughly parish lines and setting up an Electoral Commission with a fully staffed office to be responsible for all electoral matters including a centralised electoral register) were never acted upon. You have to wonder why
For Senator Ferguson to dismiss this talented, dedicated and courageous man of whom the Daily Telegraph said: “he won a reputation as a man of scrupulous integrity and devotion to duty as “he was just a civil servant” and ignore the contribution made by all other members of the panel is disgraceful and I hope she will have the good grace to apologise to the House when next it meets for this totally misleading description.
Yours sincerely.
Ted Vibert
President Jersey Democratic Alliance
1 Osborne Court, La Route de St. Aubin, First Tower St. Helier
KEEPING THEIR ELECTORAL PROMISES
Dear Sir,
The mark of a politician of honesty and integrity is how they keep their election promises. Those who don’t hope that, over the passage of time, the electorate will forget what they promised at election time. It is the job of vigilant islanders to constantly remind the electorate when a politician fails utterly to keep his election promise on issues
So here’s a reminder. Who said 3 years ago on his election: “I promise a different approach. We need much more concentration on social policy from the next Council of Ministers”
“We have to be more caring,. greener and seen to be less about the economy and more about social policies.
“There is a widening gap between the haves and the have- nots. I think my talents can best be harnessed on the financial side and make the States more responsive to supporting the benefits system.
“There has to be a radical re-think of the make- up of the faces on the Council of Ministers so that it is more reflective of the views of the electorate.”
I don’t think many readers would have got it.
It was non-other than our Treasury Minister Senator Philip Ozouf, the driving force behind policies that has widened even more the gap between Jersey’s “haves” and “have-nots”. His policies have angered parents, whose children are at fee paying schools, sportsmen and women who will lose their funding to go away and take part in competitions, public sector workers who face redundancies, the sick who have lost medical facilities at the Hospital, postal workers who are losing their jobs, ordinary hard working Jersey people who face rising bills for everything and now face a 2% hike in GST, and children at school who have lost their school milk.
Caring? Greener? Less about economics and more about social policies?
Your readers can make up their own mind about the political integrity of our Treasury Minister.
Yours sincerely,
Ted Vibert
President Jersey Democratic Alliance
1 Osborne Court
La route de la St Aubin, First Tower, St Helier JE2 3SD
Tel: M: 077978 46764 Home: 01534 625591 Email: tedvibert@gmail.com
Dear Sir,
Why is it that every time someone criticises the JDA and our policies they totally misrepresent us?
Mr. Gerald Voisin (19 September) has done just that by saying that I have claimed “that it is acceptable for States expenditure to increase dramatically over the past ten years or so, after all, its not much more than the annual increase in the cost of living and it’s not really a problem.”
That has never been our position
What I have done is try and put States expenditure in a proper perspective to counter the scare-mongering of the Treasury Minister and the Small Society and explain why the cost of running the island has risen so much in the last ten years.
When the Small Society pointed out that the cost of running Jersey had risen by 75% in ten years, I argued that this was very misleading because it failed to take into account t that inflation in that ten years was 38%. This meant that the cost of running Jersey in real terms had gone up 38% or 3.8% a year- hardly a recipe for a “bloated society”
I also pointed out that the population of Jersey had risen by 8,000 in the last ten years which adds costs to all departments of the States, especially health and education...
I also pointed out that the biggest difference in running the States of Jersey in the last ten years has been the move to ministerial government. As an example, Scrutiny is now costing £1.2 million a year. Ministerial government has also seen the introduction of a whole raft of departments mainly dealing with the Finance industry.
These costs are
economic and international finance £1.6 million
corporate projects £1.9million
infrastructure £3.1 million
business support groups £3.1 million
protection of Jersey’s finance industry £400,000`
Jersey Finance Ltd £2.4 million
This is a total of £12 million expenditure purely on the finance industry which was not incurred in 2000.
Then there’s the £4 million spent on the agricultural industry restructuring the dairy industry, giving grants to farmers for environmental work and helping farmers cope with the changes taking place in their industry.- We spent £7.5 million on tourism promotion. This was an 11% increase in just one year. The finance sector’s budget was up 21% in one year.
It is interesting to note that the three industries which received the most in States grants make up the major part of the membership of the Small Society screaming for cuts in States expenditure-prov ided it doesn’t affect them.
What I have consistently argued is that Jersey’s public sector is not “bloated”. It is more efficient than any of our neighbours and competitors We spend less on our government as a proportion of our GDP than any of them or any OECD country.
The comparisons are:
Isle of Man 33%
Guernsey 22%
Jersey 17%
That is what I have been arguing.
I also take issue with Mr. Voisin on why we are facing this deficit. It is not just because we spend too much. It is because our revenue is down. And he admits that this is due to the zero ten tax structure which he supported when he was a States Deputy . If it is a case that we must reduce our expenditure- and I don’t believe it is-I think this should be done fairly. How can anyone support removing school milk from the agenda saving £183,000 yet still allow the States to give St. Michaels School £402,000, St. Georges School £189,000 and the Convent £463,000 of taxpayers money. These schools, generally speaking, educate the children of wealthy residents who don’t wish their children to mix with ordinary kids at States schools. They are entitled to make that choice but should the tax-payer pay anything towards that decision?. Why were their funds considered more important that any of the cuts made to school milk or the health budget?
When it comes to the alternative of putting up taxes, Mr. Voisin jumps on the Small Society bandwagon and trots out the hoary old argument that if we put up taxes, banks and finance houses will leave the island as will wealthy residents. He produces no evidence at all of this, of course, because no proper research has ever been carried out. It’s the typical scaremongering of the Establishment and it’s getting tiresome
Yours sincerely,
Ted Vibert
President Jersey Democratic Alliance
I Believe my Actions are Appropriate and Timely
Letter to Jersey Evening Post
Geoff Southern 9th June 2010
The careful reader of Ben Quérée’s column (JEP, 8 Jun) would draw the clear implication that my motives in bringing a motion of no confidence in the Chief Minister were solely based on opportunistic electioneering.
Such an accusation would be fair, but mistaken, if coming from a rival candidate, but totally inappropriate when expressed in the Island’s only newspaper about one of nine candidates in a by-election. I am grateful therefore to the Editor for granting me this right to reply.
Ben Quérée appears to have a limited grasp of the realities of political life. To oppose and defeat a major piece of the Council of Ministers’ policy, no matter how ill-thought out and badly constructed, requires enormous efforts.
The argument and debate will go on to September, and will pre-empt the budget decisions in December. It is not just a case of turning up and giving a speech on the day. The weaknesses and flaws need to be aired early and often in order to allow them to be firmly established.
The fact is there is no political coherence to the Comprehensive Spending Review. In the absence of a strategic agreement among ministers, and with no consultation with front line workers, it has been left to chief officers and senior mangers to produce the two per cent savings.
The States still has no evidence of what the full cuts (ten per cent or £50m savings) will look like. Neither do we have any idea of what alternative tax changes might be acceptable to mitigate the cuts. We are making decisions in the dark.
An early and full debate on the overall strategic vision of the Council of Ministers in the serious context of a no confidence debate is, I believe, legitimate. What has happened so often in the past is that some individual parts of the package will get picked off by Members and defeated but the main body of measures will get bulldozed through.
Scrutiny will do its best, in the rushed timescale required, but it cannot amass the required evidence of the harm that these savage cuts will do to the workforce and to the most vulnerable in society. Scrutiny is in any case often ignored.
I have brought over 80 propositions, including votes of no confidence, to the States in my time and I know that timing is critical.
The CSR debate needs to be had now, before it is firmly established as the only option. A no confidence debate, whatever the outcome, will set the context for the long campaign to come on this, the most serious issue which has come to the States in recent times. It will affect the quality of life of all residents for years to come. I maintain that my actions are appropriate, timely and based on long-held promises to protect public services.