From Paul Bennett.
I WRITE in response to the letter from 16-year-old Lauren Perkins (JEP, 22 October) in which she says she doesn’t understand why people made the decision to vote the current States Members back in.

It is called ‘democracy’. That part of the electorate, able and willing to make the effort to vote, chose those candidates that experience and judgment suggested would make the best job of representing the Island’s best interests. Not the interests of the rich or the poor, not the interests of the old or the young, not the interests of automobilists or pedestrians, not cyclists or dog walkers, not fishermen or bankers, fireman or clerics, etc etc, but of the Island and all its lucky inhabitants.

And we are lucky inhabitants. It is probably a good thing that Lauren has decided that she does not ‘particularly want to live in Jersey’. As a young adult living elsewhere, she might glean a better perspective on what a great place Jersey is.

Not just because it is a pretty Island with a mild climate, but because generally the Islanders are a good people who collectively make good judgments when electing their government. It is unnerving that anyone, irrespective of age or gender, should make the assumption that the rest of the electorate, including myself, did not ‘consider carefully where to put their crosses’.

‘Why people have made the decision to vote the current States Members back in’ is, perhaps, a personal matter for each member of the electorate. Personally I felt that in the run-up to the election a majority of the electorate fell into two camps.

The largest comprised those who feel that Jersey is a positive place to live, at least partly due to the efforts of those members they subsequently chose to help re-elect. They were not saying that those politicians are perfect (so few of us are); nor were they not accepting that contentious issues will and should remain.

These particular voters were of the opinion that most of our politicians, and especially those four candidates who are ‘back in’, are looking to the future by protecting the conditions that make possible a strong economy that will help deliver benefits to the whole Island, an economy that is apparently bearing up well in the light of all that is presently going on in the world.

The second group were those who wanted ‘new blood’ in the States. However, they apparently found it difficult to vote for most of that ‘new blood’ which presented itself for election. Each of our existing members was once a new name on the ballot paper, and each won a first election (not always their first).

A consensus this time round simply couldn’t bring themselves to vote for people who claimed to know better than the existing incumbents but whose policies, quite frankly, didn’t add up. Thankfully, the electorate deemed neither a sense of humour, extreme youth, aggression, nor exaggerated and inappropriate self-confidence to be a match for thoughtful intelligence, sincerely applied.

Lauren says that ‘those who spent most on their campaigns and had the biggest posters seem to have got in’. The six successful candidates ran positive campaigns without resorting to personal abuse, which I suggest has far more relevance than poster size. She goes on to say: ‘I thought that people wanted change.’ Well, she might have thought so from the noise of the ‘rent-a-mob’ crowds at each hustings, but the silent, positive-thinking majority thought otherwise.

Whatever Lauren does, I hope she will be positive, look out for the good things in Jersey, cherish what she has and not dwell on the negative.
3 La Tourelle,
Route des Côtes du Nord,
Trinity.