MY old granny was widowed at a relatively young age, although it has to be said that her six surviving children – she had eight but two died in infancy, as was not uncommon in those days – were all working for a living when their father died.

Apparently he had been ill for some time, so she took several jobs in order, as she used to say, to put some grub on the table. All the jobs involved cleaning and other household tasks for a number of people who were clearly better
off than she was. I can remember asking her about this, and in particular how she actually got the jobs, and her
response was interesting.

As she explained, it was a combination of factors which started off with a neighbour realising that with a sick husband, times were difficult and so she offered her work on a couple of mornings a week. That led to a similar offer, and then she answered two advertisements – one pinned up on a board at one of the parish’s shops and the other in the columns of this newspaper.

This conversation took place many years ago – I’m probably now at least as old as my granny was then – so it never dawned on me to ask if the two advertisements specified that it was a ‘cleaning lady’ or ‘ironing lady’ or even ‘woman wanted for general housework’ which was required. But I strongly suspect that that was the case.

I read the other day that Senator Ben Shenton was one of ‘many’ of that lot in the Big House who questioned the need for a discrimination law, and I reckon that he and the others who asked those questions must have had these sort of things in mind when they spoke.

Perhaps those who believe that ‘discrimination’ against men doing ironing, cleaning and polishing silver and brass is so widespread that legislation is essential in order to rid the place of such an evil could explain why anyone should be barred by law from expressing their choice of wanting a female or a male employee to carry out these tasks for them?

While they are about it, they might also tell me that with the image of government at its lowest ebb in living memory how measures such as this take priority over addressing what many believe to be far more important – and fundamental – issues? And if they ask what those more important issues are, then in the view of this bolshie little crapaud, it’s time they packed in.

With the forthcoming election dominating the pages of this newspaper (not a criticism, merely an accurate observation), it’s interesting to note that nine of the 13 candidates who have never sat in the Big House aspire to be elected either as ministers or as the equally important chairman of a scrutiny committee.

I had a quiet smile to myself when I read that, because I recall asking a similar question at a parish hustings meeting several years ago. There were similar responses, although I have to say that from memory all but one or two of the candidates were already Members and so, to refer back to what I said recently, at least they knew something of the procedure, never mind where the toilets and coffee machines were.

The reply which impressed me most came from one of the more senior politicians on the platform, who said that in many respects what he wanted was almost irrelevant because it was his colleagues who decided who was going to do what and not him.

That sort of response these days would lead inevitably to calls – and there have been some recently – for the choice of ministers, and particularly the job of Chief Minister, to be determined by election results or a popular vote.
To those who advocate such a procedure, may I suggest that they trot down to the public library and look up the election results, particularly those for Senator, of the last 50 years or so (or at least those within their own memory) and put the names of the six successful candidates against what they believe to be, in order of priority, the six most important ministerial jobs.

The results will probably not be to their liking. They certainly wouldn’t be to mine because I shudder to think what a pig’s ear some of our poll-toppers and populist runners-up would have made of real and accountable responsibility.
As that senior politician inferred all those years ago, those best-placed to know the strengths and weaknesses of individuals aspiring for high office are their colleagues.

The fact that former Deputy Philip Rondel has decided to re-enter the political arena will delight many, although I’m not too sure how many of that number will be the ministers and departments he will swiftly get into his sights.
While he was representing St John it was one of the delights of mornings in The Shed to listen on the wireless when he had questions tabled, because, as committee presidents (as they were then) soon realised, he rarely asked one without knowing the answer.

Affectionately known as the plumber from St John, he was a breath of fresh air in a place which was often described as ‘those few square yards surrounded by reality’. And if he is successful in his quest to regain his seat, people like me will welcome his return with open arms.

And finally … it was pleasing to hear that Senator Philip Ozouf is taking steps to
ensure the provision of savings protection for Island residents who have money deposited with local banks.
Perhaps his swift response to expressions of surprise and concern that such a scheme was not already in place is one virtue of the ministerial system, which arguably reduces time-consuming committee deliberations.
Although I do say ‘perhaps’.