2

Chubber

Please stop, my sides are hurting.

The only people who don’t know this are the Council of ministers.

Report abuse

4

Keyser Söze

No surprises here.

Report abuse

6

david brown

clothier.

Report abuse

8

phil percchard

Clothier said “don’t cherry pick”
What did our States do?
They cherry picked.
Marks out of ten … zero.
Result … FAIL

Report abuse

10

cookiecrumble

Tell us something new and what do they intend to do about it.! It is so obvious that the Council of Ministers elect to have their own agendas and that any decision making is incestous due to a Minister and Assistant having the decision making powers.Having said that the Civil Service and Mr.Ogley love it as they can control the “puppets” which was more difficult under a committee structure.
Hopefully some action will be taken before Jersey’s governmental structure becomes ever more leaderless.

Report abuse

12

vicmel

Jersey used to be like Disney World – same 45 sq Miles – same intent to woo the tourist… what happened? We had the wrong Managing Director – followed by the wrong managing director followed by…..

Quite simple – Jersey is a business – a big business and it needs to be run by someone who understands big business….. With respect to EVERY Jersey politician – they are miles out of their league … This is a business that needs to work for all of the shareholders…that’s you and me..the people of Jersey…and in all honesty – if you put old Jersey relationships and vested interests aside – there is nobody who has a clue… Which one of our ministers would have a chance of being CEO of Disney?????…… exactly!

Report abuse

14

truthseeker

Mr Egre is right on this and the findings have been obvious for ages.now official it seems.the COM is a total failure and not least because of too much power vested in one individual,there have been some truly awful overrides by solo ministers of sane decisions lately,politicians need protecting from themselves and their human temptations….a panel/committee avoids this hell bent megalomania we have all witnessed…just look at the carnage at social security,planning and on and on …reform so that we have actual representation and democracy….totalitarian regimes own the people ..any one here beginning to feel a distinct lack of personal autonomy in their lives right now….?

Report abuse

16

Farmer Trev

One day something will be concluded without the need for professional advice,

Just ask the people, they will tell you how to run the island

Report abuse

18

catseyes

Oh ,tell me the old, old story!

The Ministerial Government isn’t working….did it ever? Added to that, now we have one member of it who hasn’t even been here for months coming back to say he can “fix it”

If he couldn’t before and the toys were thrown out of the pram, how can it be different this time?

Once, when this island was run by those people so successful that they didn’t need the inflated salaries we now pay the ministers, we had people with business sense running things and that is what made Jersey what it became, a highly successful island with a stable, sensible crew at the helm.

Time marches on, much changes and we can only move forwards. My criticismns in no way apply to all in government here, but I do wonder if salaries offered mean that anyone who doesn’t fit in anywhere else is tempted to give one-upmanship a go. Call me sceptical but I do wonder if the motivation to enter the political arena here is sometimes not driven so much as by wondering what ” I can do for my island as by what the island can do for me” ?

Report abuse

20

Jerry

18 catseyes – I sympathise with parts of what you say, but can’t buy the whole argument.

Undoubtedly, in recent years, there have been politicians of very low ability, who couldn’t have dreamed of getting a similar salary out in the real world. Perhaps the electors could/should have been more discerning. Perhaps there is a Jersey tendency – reflected in many posts on this site – to support anyone who looks like a ‘stirrer’, regardless of ability or any other relevant factors.

Also, the fact that there is a salary, which will be lost if that politician is not re-elected, must create some additional pressure for politicians to try to crowd-please rather than acting on principle.

However, in the halcyon days you allude to, not all the people running things were ‘people with business sense’: Some were there just because they were scions of notable Parish families with a tradition of States membership – but who couldn’t be trusted with involvement in the family business – some because they rather fancied the status – and all of them, because they could afford to be there. As a result, Committees were often packed with ‘nodding heads’, with just one member – or even none – who would have actually read and understood the agenda for the meeting.

And even if all those politicians in the ‘good old days’ had been talented and energetic, what then? Talent and energy are welcome, sure, as is business acumen – but was it really such a good thing that the Island was governed entirely by one class of people, leaving the concerns of 95% of the population entirely unrepresented? Was it healthy, that all the decisions – often commercially sensitive – were made by people who were either business colleagues, or business rivals, or ‘sleeping partners’ with nothing better to do?

In the old days, we could have ‘any colour you like, so long as it’s black’. Nowadays, rather than complaining about the price, perhaps we need to learn to shop around more effectively, and look to get value for our money:)

Report abuse

22

truthseeker

And here we hace the other Terry..Le Main this time,trying to schmooze the powers of prosecution,,in favour of his pal..this is the old pals act ..showcased in all it’s dirty ungloriousness…and just the tip of the iceberg…an example of the endemic culture of this ilk..This “We do as we like ” thing has to be overthrown..and let’s gave the same rules for the man in the street as everyone else ..or else ALL laws are invalidand apply to no one…stand down that man if you have an ounce of honour…don’t hold your breath folks.

Report abuse

24

BS Deluxe

Terry Le Main should be forced down from public office as he has NO CREDIBILITY whatsoever. This is the HOUSING minister urging for his pal to escape the consequences for BREAKING the HOUSING LAWS which he himself was reposnible for.

Terry….get your head out of the sand….he cannot be much of a friend to you if he has openly disrespected your own department in this way!

For anyone out there who has been punished by these housing laws I would urge you to get Terry Le Main to write a letter on your behalf in the same way….if he doesn’t then get him to explain why and then SUE!

Report abuse

26

Hewn from rock

A lack of understanding by Jerry. It was not the judiciary which criticised the minister. It was counsel in the case. The attempt by the minister to influence the prosecution process was so unsophisticated that it was bound to come out. What does this show? Well it indicates that those involved in the case properly brought fairly obvious correspondence to the attention of the court. It also shows that the crude action of the Senator could not really be deemed corruption due to its unsophisticated nature. While it is true that “corruption” comes in all shapes and sizes, it is fair to say that most “corruption” is somewhat more covert and sophisticated than was the case here. That said, it was clearly an error of judgment.

What is wrong with ministerial government? Unaccountability and an arrogant inclination to spurn any form of scrutiny. Too much power vested in onc person. No effective checks and balances. A flawed appointment process. As if to add weight to the cause, we see this week that the so-called council of ministers would like to block a freedom of information law. They cite the expense of any such law [even though other laws, usually involving finance are willingly sponsored]. We know, however, what is the real reason. It is secrecy, that hallmark of this most dangerous and undemocraitic ministerial system.

Report abuse

28

David Rotherham

The committee system gave almost all politicians a constructive role in government, larger or smaller according to ability. And they were enough of them in power to provide a relatively effective level of supervision over their civil servants.
The ministerial system dumps a large number of conscientious politicians, who went in to do something positive, onto the sidelines, where they can only justify holding their office by raining down private propositions and sniping questions. And it leaves the rest with more power than they should be trusted with and too little contact with the lower levels of their departments.
I wonder if we could reinstate the committee system? Soon, it will be too late, but for now there must still be enough politicians and mandarins with memories of how it worked to easily relaunch it.

Report abuse

30

Hewn from Rock

I didn’t mean to sound patronising, Jerry. That said, I still do not believe that you understand the position. You suggested in your post at 23 above that the critism of le Main would not have occurred if the judiciary was not fully above board. Again, one has to say that the critism of the Senator came from counsel. You go on to say at 27 that “The A-G’s revelation of that correspondence clearly shows that that particular conspiracy does not exist.”. Well, perhaps, but you have overlooked two things. Firstly, the prosecution duty to make disclosure and, secondly, the fact that le Main also wrote to the defence. So, even if the “judiciary” had wanted to stifle the matter, it would not have been able to.

You go wrong as well when you state that “But in any case, by tradition, today’s A-G is always tomorrow’s judge, so the ‘grouping’ is not unreasonable.”. Well, this is worrying. According to you, judiciary and prosecution are one and the same thing; a disturbing prospect indeed. One thing does come out of your commentary, however; you highlight the fact that, in Jersey, the appointment of the bailiff and his deputy is a closed process. On that point we certainly agree. An appointments commission should be created in order to set aside this most unsavoury state of affairs.

Report abuse

32

Hewn from Rock

31 Jerry;
the second paragraph of your post at 23 sets out your opinion that the judiciary were the ones who criticised the senator. Your words were exactly as follows, “If the ‘oligarchy’ in fact operated in the way it is claimed to do, with the judiciary operating in cahoots with the establishment, Senator Le Main would not have been criticised in open Court”. For the third time now, it was not the judiciary which criticised the senator. It was counsel. Both counsel had copy letters. The matter could not have been stifled even if the “judiciary” had wanted to do so.

You go on at 27 to suggest that “conspiracy theorists” will try to group the law officers with the judges. You then adopt that argument by saying (your words again) that “But in any case, by tradition, today’s A-G is always tomorrow’s judge, so the ‘grouping’ is not unreasonable.)”. Now you are attempting to distance yourself from the comment.

You then compound the matter by your subsequent assertion that an appointments commission would serve no useful purpose. You say that you have served on a number of such commissions [though by definition they could not have been commissions involved with the recruitment of local judiciary for there is none] and you cast doubt on the efficacy of such bodies. Well, this shows that perhaps the panels with which you were associated were of a poor quality; nothing more than that. What is worrying is that you cite this defeat as being supportive of the status quo, a position which sees unelected, powerful incumbents appointed by their peers. In the midst of such festering miasma, is it not true that any external and transparent body, no matter how undistinguished, would be better than what is presently the case? On the other hand, it would seem that perhaps your unflinching view [and I reply to your learned latin in kind] would be that rex non potest peccare.

Report abuse

34

Latin Lover

“Quis custodiet custodies” {which is misspelt at post 31) means, who guards the guards? Who indeed?

Whoever uses the term clearly views the judiciary and other so-called authority figures as “guards”. Guards of what? I know that we need to have faith in those who are imposed upon us (like the ministers about whom this thread is supposed to be about) but isn’t it a little naive to depict these unelected and urguably self-serving figures in such an anachronistic, fawning supine, subordinate and altogether romantic way?

Report abuse

36

Mac

For all the Latinists: the phrase is both wrongly spelt and incomplete. The correct quotation is “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes” – translated as “who watches those who themselves keep watch”. It’s a quote from Juvenal and refers all the way back to Socrates and Plato.

Here’s a thing. Plato’s Republic puts the question to Socrates, “Who will guard the guardians?” Plato’s answer to this is that they will guard themselves against themselves. The guardians must be told a “noble lie” that will assure them that they are better than those they serve and it is therefore their responsibility to guard and protect those lesser than themselves. It will instill in them a distaste for power or privilege; they will rule because they believe it right, not because they desire it.

But this is Jersey. I suspect the number of States members who think Socrates is a philosopher rather than a Brazilian footballer – let alone the number who have actually read Plato’s Republic – can be counted on the fingers of one hand…

Report abuse

38

seeming cycle

Jerry, you definately mentioned the view of some being that the judiciary were/are in cahoots. Your words have been quoted. A reproduction of the actual words written cannot be a misrepresentation or a “twisting” of words.

You stated that, if the cited view were correct, the matter would not have come out. But it matters not whether the judiciary were in cahoots or not. It was the lawyers who brought up the matter. Have you read the report in the JEP? “res ipsa loquitur”; the thing speaks for itself.

Report abuse

40

res integra?

I am not surprised if Jerry has had negative experiences of serving on an appointments commission. If the posts are anything to go by, any such panel must have had a very dogmatic and opinionated partial membership

Report abuse

42

Jerry

Omigahd! I interpolated an ‘i’! And I left out the Latin word for ‘themselves’!! In a quote which is generally not believed to be by Juvenal, but a later addition to the text. Horrendous. Frankly unforgiveable.

Still, please do forgive me – I’m afraid I’m only a beginner at this typos business, and I couldn’t possibly hope to compete with much stronger efforts in the genre, like Latin Lover’s ‘urguably’ – very fine invention, really ‘quiet, quiet’ wonderful (as one of the Senatorial candidates would say)

Report abuse

44

Rogerham Mansions

The words ” “If the ‘oligarchy’ in fact operated in the way it is claimed to do, with the judiciary operating in cahoots with the establishment, Senator Le Main would not have been criticised in open Court”. ” are self explanatory. If the judiciary were in cahoots with the establishment, the senator would not have been criticised…..except, it was the lawyers who brought up the correspondence.

If the latter is what Jerry meant to allude to, the correct thing for him to have written would have been ““If the ‘oligarchy’ in fact operated in the way it is claimed to do, with the lawyers {not judicary, note, Jerry } operating in cahoots with the establishment, Senator Le Main would not have been criticised in open Court”.

Surely that is the nub of the matter Jerry. Why otherwise try and deny something that is written in the plainest of terms!?

Report abuse