Who is this 'no hoper'

It is quite excruciating when former States members display their  disregard or ignorance of democratic concepts. So I wasn't  impressed to  read Mr Shenton's view on hustings at
no hopers are ruining the political hustings for voters

There are a few problems  not just with the principle as it applies to proper democratic processes, but also with a few practicalities.  I'll start with a couple of them.  Take Donald Trump.  Widely perceived as something of a joke candidate and no hoper at the start of the process he is now a contender for president of the United States.   Or what of Abraham Lincoln who was a serial election loser before he was eventually elected to that same office.   See Abraham Lincoln failures  And what about the psephologists predictions for the last UK general election or the BrExit referendum, both of which they got wrong.  So how do you determine a priori who and who is not a no hoper, or indeed a shoe in winner?  If you cannot do that  Mr Shenton's proposition is a farcical piece of nonsense.


It may surprise Mr Shenton to know that hustings are not principally about entertainment.  They are historically for the benefit of those voters who wish to see the candidates perform and hear their views, deriving from a time when many voters might be illiterate.  Just as elections are not reality TV pop culture voting , not least because it is about a lot more than simply winning. People can and do take to the elections process to argue a political case - it may be unaccepted by the electorate, but nevertheless very useful and important.  It takes time to gain widespread support for change and new ideas.   We use democracy to do that as it is the least worst option, and it enables those ideas to be raised and tested in public.  That's a good thing, not to be suppressed, Mr Shenton.


The former Senator  bemoans the lack of engagement with the public, yet he proposes a mechanism that  would do nothing to increase the choice and variety on offer to the electorate. Indeed his main aim seems to be to narrow the options  by excluding what he concludes to be no hopers.  I ask how is that going to increase participation, who is going to turn out to vote if there is no one presenting a view they support (as indeed some have commented about the absence of a deep green candidate at the last general and this recent by election).


Another problem with his proposed mechanism is the fixed rate.  It wouldn't put off wealthy  'no hopers' but it would be disproportionately  arduous on poorer candidates.  Perhaps if he had proposed a deposit of  1%  of gross wealth that would be more equitable, but still contrary to the democratic  philosophy.   And I guess that's where we really see what is going on here.  Mr Shenton would have an election limited to the choices of comfortable off candidates who subscribe to a narrow view of politics .  More a personality selection process than any political choice.  That's one sure way to undermine  the whole system, including the participation rate.

An abandoned generation

It gets far too hot in the middle of the day for me to be working in the field.  So I took the opportunity to watch the first by election hustings over a long lunch. I wish I hadn't - it was unsavoury, unappetising and nearly made me wretch. I'm not referring to  the food.  The video is at St Saviour husting

I won't run you through a critique of all the opening 3 minute speeches.   I'll cut straight to the answers given to one very good question from the floor.  What are the three greatest challenges to Jersey over the next 20-30 years? 

I'll summarise the responses in the order candidates gave their replies.  There was a time limit to answer jointly two questions so some could not give three priorities.

M O'K B  Brexit, economy, education
AA           Economy . immigration (no third)
HR           Brexit, (no second, no third)
JY            Brexit, finance sector growth, population growth
SF            Brexit, banking industry, falling productivity
MD          Brexit (no second, no third)
CM          Diversify Economy, education, ageing population
NleC       Alternative for finance industry, Brexit, Inequality, Constitutional reform   (YES That is 4!)
SM          Culture of Complacency, Brexity, population
GdeF       Transport links, creative thinking (no third)
SO           Establishing a film commission , Brexit.


I'll happily accept population, and diversifying the economy is a tolerable answer, but as to the rest, I have to ask really, I mean really?   Brexit may not even happen.  If it does we cannot yet foresee the impacts or manner of it happening, it may even be beneficial.  Compared to the certain increasing challenges of climate change, food security, resource depletion, ecosystems collapse over the same timescale, I want to ask the candidates what f**king planet are you on?  It is certainly not mine! 

OK so you are not really internationalists, but what about local issues?  Does no one expect or hope for any major impact of the COI over the coming decades.  The evidence is there we  had kids in care abused over decades, but it is now just sweetness and light , all dealt with , is it? Justice?  Is there really no challenge or change required in our justice system over the coming decades? What about the galloping rate of science and technical change and the impact it will have - the surveillance and personal intrusion of having everything tracked and monitored?  Have we no ambition on renewable energy, self reliance for the coming decades? What about inclusion, participation, democracy itself? 

My overall assessment.  FAIL , the lot of them.  I'm bitterly disappointed in Sam Mezec and John Young who I had hoped might have a grasp on a few of these issues and be prepared to take them on.  The best prospect on those criteria based on the St Saviour hustings was Christian May.  He mentions climate change in his vote.je profile (as does Hugh Raymond). He talks of standing up the COM and power, but he uses all the CoM current buzz words and favoured topics (like ageing population and digital). When a One Nation Tory (as I believe he probably is) is your best bet you now things are pretty dire.

And as for my children's generation.   They have been abandoned by our aspirant politics it seems.

A consultation offer from the Borg.

If you have a mind to you can read the grand plans for the digital takeover of Jersey .  See  Digital Policy Framework  Helpfully they even tell you what questions you should consider and respond to.  My advice - dont' bother. There are much bigger better questions and issues then those you are invited to consider.

You might also wonder if it is worth your time.  As this press released item digital jersey and population office  demonstrates it has already been agreed that 30 licenses will be given to the digital sector ahead of any outcome of  the consultation. As they say in politics: never ask in public a question to which you do not already know the answer.   Where I would like to know is the research to demonstrate we do not have the skills and knowledge locally?  How does Digital Jersey  and the Population Office account for having highly skilled and experienced local software developers in the island working in other sectors ?  Why cannot it attract them (hint: it isn't about the money).

The policy document reminds me of the sort of think I used to read in the '90's working on AI systems and research.  Lots of overblown and politically unacceptable stuff from business and tech heads on what is possible, lots of big claims economically about transformation etc, but almost nothing on societal impact, ethics or principles. More of a sales and marketing pitch than a policy discussion  and certainly not a well rounded integrated piece.

How about a few quotes from the draft.

'Where will Jersey be in another 10 years?'  That is the only time frame I can see in the document.  It is not inappropriate to have a 10 year view, but tricky  - I'll come on to some the technological changes others expect to happen in the next ten years another day. See if you think some of these other quotes make sense on a ten year view, if  they are in fact acceptable at all.

 

“Digital technology will be the backbone of Jersey's economic activity”.   Bye-bye finance?

“Digital will be the default format for all economic activity”. Yes by default Jersey Royals will be exported digitally.  3D print your own Royals on demand , perhaps.   

How about page 7 " Government has responsibility to ensure every Islander has the skills they need to thrive in a digital economy."  Sound sensible to you?  How about if I rewrote it as Government has responsibility to ensure every Islander has the skills they need to thrive in a finance based economy  or Government has responsibility to ensure every Islander has the skills they need to thrive in a car based society." NO.

The centrally planned economy dictated from our authoritarian overlords doesn't stop at telling us what jobs we may work at.   Under government digital transformation we have 9. Develop and implement an effective Digital ID for all Islanders.

Yes under the new totally digital economy you will be uniquely identified.  Every move interaction and location will have the potential to be tracked, logged  and preserved by the government for what means?     You think they wont?  Not our nice friendly cuddly Government, surely! 

Try this then, they are thinking to collect your personal data to sell to private companies.  Truly.  

Make better use of government data for the benefit of the public and private sector: Alongside the direct advantages of moving government services online, Islanders will also benefit indirectly from the wealth of data these services will provide. This data will enable public officials to make better policy decisions, based on more detailed and up-to-date evidence. Furthermore, if this data could be made available to the private sector, the benefits could be multiplied. The public sector – both government and state owned companies – in Jersey collects a wealth of data that, if disseminated appropriately, has the potential to be a useful raw material for digital businesses in the Island.

I like the throw away comment, cited as a challenge " A small minority of Islanders still do not have access to the internet".  They will be complaining that using cash  undermines the digital economy next.  That is the choice people must have in an open society.  It may be very inconvenient  to Ministers perception of the Island as a business , but we are not all slaves or State employees. 

I have a different way of looking at these things.  I see computers/ IT /digital to be the servant of people, not the tools to trap, ensnare  and control them.  I think Government should be a tool of the people....

If you give up your freedom to really choose for a few paper token of fiat currency , you will end up with no individual identity, no personal choice beyond which part you would like to be in the great machine.  

Why would anyone do that?

If you havent heard it I recommend the World At One programme broadcast 5/5/2015 which covers child sexual abuse allegations from 40 years ago and the involvement of politicians.  It also explains why the broadcast media refuse to cover these stories, as their internal rules require two witnesses.   It is on iPlayer at World at One starting at 27.5 minutes in.

Rather more significantly to my mind however is that the parties were photographed and filmed. Even the presenter queries  the claim of being photographed and filmed, and why the abusers would allow it given the potential consequences for them.  The victim showed the evidence of photos he had found with him in it. The former head of the metropolitan police paedophile unit confimed that it probably was the victim in the photo.

Why would important public people like politicians allow themselves to be recorded in illegal and career destroying acts?  It makes no sense unless they believed they were invulnerable.  If they really believed they could and would be protected and the evidence would never be made public.  That is the chilling aspect from a public safety and order perspective.  People in very senior positions must have been active in covering up and suppressing evidence of what was happening.  As the victim in the piece says he was given the strongest of warnings what would happen to him if he went public or informed.  Again something that would require at the very least collusion from senior people.  

Once that sort of evidence exists, whoever has control of it also has  leverage.  The threat of it being released or leaked would be enough to ensure compliance in lesser criminal or illegal acts.  The evidence and knowledge of what someone has done then becomes a currency in itself, something that can be traded for influence and  protection in other matters.

The World at One series continues today.  But be warned; what is described happening in the UK it not unique and the evidence is the modus operandi of these evil people in using knowledge, recordings and evidence for power is similar everywhere it occurs.  

All political careers end in failure

“All political careers end in failure” is a maxim usually attributed to the logical genius but politically ineluctably detestable Enoch Powell.

May 2015 will be the 30th anniversary of my first candidature in a public election. I had of course already been a candidate, and often successfully so, to various bodies and organisations, including the National Union of Students and the national Liberal Ecology Group. This year it happens is the 25^th anniversary of my election as a County Councillor. Contesting elections is in my blood. I think it is a service to democracy when standing offers the electorate a distinctive choice they would not otherwise have. Given the peculiar first past the post voting system used in the UK, as here, that word distinctive is crucial. Having candidates of similar views standing against each other does not give more choice other than in the narrow sense of which person they 'like' more. In other places they either use primaries to sort out the differences upfront, or they use a preferential voting system.

People do not always stand to win the election. There are times when you are campaigning for a big challenging change and use the platform of an election to raise issues that are not otherwise being considered. I did that the last senatorial elections. And while the JEP delighted in repeatedly calling me a 'failed senatorial candidate' , it was only by standing that I was able to identify and contact like minded people and help use that to form Jersey Climate Action Network and Jersey in Transition.

Sometimes, however, the opportunity arises to go into the election with the purpose of winning and being in a position to argue and influence the course of policy and having a voice to raise issues in the public arena as they arise rather than being constrained to triennial  elections. When the current deputy of St Ouen declared he was not standing again, the possibility of standing with the aim of winning was clear. Of course there was much speculation about who might stand, and at least 7 names were mentioned. Of those only two were strongly progressive and ecologically minded. One was not standing for sure, the other I offered if they declared early on I would not stand against them. After some reflection they decided against and I then committed to standing , being as sure as I could be that I was likely the only environmentally minded  candidate, probably the only progressive.

Dutifully I notified the connetable so that I could be taken of the policing rota, I sorted out a proposer, who was very on board with the sustainability message (Thanks Mr R), and even had my pony tail cut. Helen and the children have never known me without it. Then things started to take a negative turn.

If you are unaware of it, a key prerequisite for standing, here as in the UK, is to have a proposer and 9 seconders on a duly completed form. I've never had a problem doing this, and it does not commit anyone to supporting you , to the extent I wonder if it really serves any purpose. Perhaps in the days when the number of electors would have been a couple of hundred, but not when it is in the thousands. I drew up a list of people in the parish I know and who have been supportive previously or made public comment in the past compatible with my campaign points. A couple had recently moved out of the parish, or taken a job with the States, and were unable or ineligible to sign. Fair enough. What did surprise me was that handful who said they were not prepared to sign as they were intending to vote for one of the early declared candidates because they were at school together, or think he's a nice person, even though they disagreed with them politically. I had no idea I was such an odiously disagreeable person that statement implies. Given what most people seem to think of politicians perhaps that should be taken as an unintended endorsement!

And then I heard the Russell Labey really was going to stand for deputy of the parish too. Given his high profile from the reform referendum campaign, and having been on local television for much of the '80's, I expected he would stand for senator where recognition is absolutely essential to being elected, and a real asset.

Having spoken to Russell about his standing it is clear we share a broadly liberal outlook on politics in general and would be campaigning on the same side on a couple of critical parochial issues, such as field 622. We would be seeking the same voters, and in doing so almost certainly let in one of the previously declared candidates with whom we both disagree on these points. So for some weeks now I have been struggling with the decision I have to make. Do I give up what is very likely my last and, until Russell declares, my best chance of being elected to the States, or not? From what I know of the declared candidates across the Island so far I do not see a likely champion for sustainable living, the organic growers, implementation of climate change plans, ending our mercury emissions, etc. There is no win-win scenario here. If this election is to be about personalities rather than policy then Russell is the better candidate. If it is to be about policy then both Russell and I lose if we both stand.

This is an incredibly hard thing to do personally. Assuming Russell does stand for deputy, as I believe , in effect it marks an ignominious end of my 30 year involvement in public elections. I feel wretchedly sorry and apologetic towards those people who desperately wanted to see a deep green voice back in the States (though Russell is far from a 'grey'!) . I have let them down. I am embarrassed at having to disappoint people in the parish who would have supported me. I feel so deflated. Much as I would love to carry on to have the platform and profile to raise in the States  those big issues on which our future depends, logic dictates the only sensible course of action for this election.  There are other ways of campaigning and there are other means to the end.