|
Homepage
To leave blog please click back button on your browser to return to
main site.
|
A blatant attempt to
censor debate?
December 2, 2009 Deputy
Geoff Southern.
I am writing about the latest moves to make the States more ‘efficient’.
At first glance this seems a reasonable measure, but closer examination
reveals a blatant attempt by some ministers, and others (Senators Ozouf,
Perchard and Shenton), who might be expected to know better, to stifle
the healthy democratic increase in activity on the part of elected
progressive politicians in the States.
No doubt they would refer to these progressive members, new and old, as
‘the opposition’ to the conservative establishment view. By picking on
the length and content of speeches, as a populist starting point, these
members, now backed by Privileges and Procedures, have established a
bridgehead behind which other more noxious limits to backbenchers’
rights are proposed.
There is no doubt that backbenchers have become more active over recent
years. The number of propositions lodged by backbenchers has risen to 51
in 2008 from 29 in 2006. The quality and quantity of questions, the
basic means of holding ministers to account, continues to rise.
This is a healthy position. We are seeing the development of an
effective and organised political dynamic in the assembly.
Equally, there is no doubt that life for ministers is becoming more
difficult. Ministers’ propositions have been heavily amended or on
occasion defeated. Misleading ministerial statements are challenged.
Shoddy and partial reports are given short shrift by members and
referred back.
Increasingly high quality, well researched work is brought to the States
from the backbenches. Question time has become a real challenge. Again,
this is a healthy position.
Some ministers, and one in
particular, object to this. They would like to see a return to the old
days when a minister just had to turn up on the day to get a proposition
through. Intense lobbying behind closed doors had been done to ensure
the right result.
The constables could be relied on to vote the ‘right’ way. The
ministers’ request to ‘trust me, I have the Island’s best interests at
heart’ went unchallenged. It was business as usual.
I use the word ‘business’ deliberately, because this is the business
model of politics. It is Jersey plc.
The boss says: ‘I have decided, now go and do it’. The boss will not
tolerate any argument, nor it seems do some ministers. The problem is
that business is not democratic, whereas government is.
Some ministers do not wish to hear the contrary arguments, no matter how
well put, and certainly not at length. Like children, they clap their
hands to their ears and stamp their feet in the hope that the argument
will go away.
Let’s talk turkey here and name names. This fuss has been brought to a
head by the arrival of the new Deputy of St Mary, Daniel Wimberley, an
elected member who has a comprehensive knowledge of green issues. He is
an undoubted asset to the Chamber.
In the perhaps naive view, shared by many, that decisions should be
based on research, fact and evidence, he has attempted to condense his
lifelong studies into two speeches on the incinerator and on population.
That he failed to do this in under ten minutes (say) or whatever limits
are proposed, should not start us on a set of radical changes.
He will learn, as many
members have, that it is largely unproductive to speak for more than 20
minutes. Such skills must be learned; they cannot be imposed.
If we are naming names, then can anyone tell me the relevance of any of
the contributions of Senator Terry (the good people of Jersey) Le Main
to further the debate or, for that matter, what added value Deputy Ben
(in a previous life) Fox contributes. At least his speeches are
mercifully short.
Beware, members, if we start censoring the content of speeches, who
knows what will be banned. Any attempt to censor will be to the
detriment of our democracy.
As to increasing lodging periods for backbenchers’ propositions from the
current two weeks, if the minister with his dozens of managers of this
and directors of that cannot respond within two weeks, they are not
worth their titles. What happened to their efficiency?
This proposal makes rapid response to urgent issues (Woolworths workers,
etc) impossible and the backbenchers’ task of representing constituents
more difficult. Will it be one rule for us and another for them?
Only last week the Chief
Minister, no less, amended his own amendment ‘on the hoof’ in the
Chamber. Would that have been allowed for a backbencher? Almost
certainly not. Proposals to vet propositions – how, and by whom, one has
to ask – are obvious forms of control and censorship.
Further proposals to limit the number of amendments and propositions
that a private member can bring are a fundamental attack on members’
ability to represent their constituents.
They will be fiercely opposed by all democratically aware members of the
States and many of the voting public.
Article posted on 2nd December, 2009 - 3.00pm
Taxing Vehicles
14th November 2009 - Dave
Rotheram
Dear Sir,
Senator Terry le Main's suggestion that something like a cross between
the old annual Road Tax and the discredited and unlamented Vehicle
Emissions Duty be introduced is as woolly as he himself admits, and not
very well knitted either.
The replacement of the road tax with additional fuel duty is as
perfectly targeted a green tax as one could imagine. The production of
CO2 is inseparably linked to the consumption of petrol. A frugal user of
a large car just for journeys where walking or cycling are ill-suited
will pollute the island and the world less than an indiscriminate user
of a small car making all sorts of unnecessary journeys just because
they can afford the petrol. Obviously, an extravagant user of a large
car will pollute more than anybody, but they will pay more for it, too,
so fair is fair. If it is felt that the current level of fuel duty is
neither producing sufficient revenue, nor deterring sufficient traffic,
it is a simple matter to hike it up to even more extortionate levels,
until the political objectives are achieved.
A simple engine size tax will be multiply unfair. Firstly, the glaring
defect of the old VED was that diesel engines pump larger quantities of
air more slowly than equivalent petrol engines, for greater fuel
efficiency, and so, by the traditional engine size measurement of the
air pumped on each revolution, were unfairly rated as larger. Design and
tuning differences between different engines of a given nominal capacity
will also considerably affect their efficiency and emission levels, so
that capacity based taxation will have only a weak relationship to
pollution. Basic and “hot” versions of the same model may have the same
capacity, but the “hot” version will inevitably burn extra fuel for the
extra power. So should a capacity tax be set to overcharge the basic
model or undercharge the hot one?
A century or more ago British cars were taxed on a derivative of
capacity called RAC horsepower, and it had to be abandoned as unworkable
long since. There is no reasonable case for bringing back anything of
the sort in the 21st Century.
Yours faithfully
David Rotherham
|
OLDER LETTERS
True Meaning of Figures
August 29th - Dave Rotheram
Public Sector Pay Freeze an Insult
August 28th - Geoff Southern
Are the Unions being Misled?
August 17th - Geoff Southern
Response to Sarah Ferguson
August
15th - Geoff Southern
Open Letter on the 2010 Business Plan
Geoff Southern.
|
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.
Public debates help set wider context April 30, 2010 – 3:00 pm
From David Rotherham.
How disappointing it was that Senator Ozouf declined Deputy Southern’s recent invitation to hold a public discussion on economic matters.
Although the two appear to share a Keynesian approach to the idea of stimulating the economy, there are important differences in how they envisage that the stimulus should be implemented.
It would have been most instructive to have heard them explain their alternative views. Moreover, as the Senator is actually in power, and making decisions that often have a rather opaque reasoning from the lay public’s viewpoint, it could have been quite reassuring, were he to take the opportunity to explain himself.
I think the Senator was wrong in his claim that the States Chamber is the only place that these matters should be discussed. States debates have to focus on the proposition in hand, whereas public debates, whether oral or by open correspondence, set the wider context that should inform the detailed debates on propositions.
As well as their differences, it would possibly be of benefit for them to also establish the extent of their common ground, and go some way to alleviate the intense polarity of their current positions.
Most importantly, by opening the discussion to a wider audience, it would have been a means by which the interested public could question and make suggestions to both men, where perhaps neither of them are quite as convincing as could be wished for.
For example, personally, I am an admirer of the work of Keynes and his followers on the economics of major nations. However, I am not at all confident that Jersey’s economy, with its huge ratio of external trade to internal trade, fits well into their models.
I would have loved to hear Messrs Ozouf and Southern explain how they adjust or compensate for the extensive leakage that any economic stimulus must suffer here. No doubt, many of your other readers have their own questions, that they would like to hear both men’s answers to.
I do hope that the Senator thinks again, and decides to take the chance to engage with his public.
Article posted on 30th April, 2010 - 3.00pm
A Pay Freeze Can only Make the Recession Worse
From Deputy Geoff Southern. December 9, 2009
I write to contest some of the assertions contained in your paper’s comment column (JEP, 2 December) entitled ‘Teachers’ strike threat’).
I could take issue with your statement that ‘the pay freeze…is neither a random act of malice nor a casual whim’. But that, quite correctly, is purely a matter of opinion.
However, your follow-up statement that (the freeze) is ‘necessary…to counter the effects of recession’ is false. It gathers not one jot of truth by virtue of repetition.
Further, to suggest that teachers ‘should be more capable of recognising the underlying logic’ (of a freeze) is mere rhetoric, since there is no logic.
The fact is that the vast majority of economists agree that the correct action to counter recession is to spend public money to stimulate the economy while the private sector recovers.
Senator Ozouf has recognised this with his fiscal stimulus package. But he turns a Nelsonian eye to the fact that putting money in the pockets of public sector workers is one of the most direct ways to get the local economy moving.
A pay rise is counter recessionary; a pay freeze makes the recession worse.
Senator Ozouf’s decision to impose an arbitrary and unilateral pay freeze will deepen the recession. It is fundamentally flawed.
I would be grateful if, in future, you could refrain from giving his actions a spurious credibility they do not deserve.