IT is often said that politicians inhabit a different country to we mere mortals and that it is called Cloud Cuckoo Land.

Last week’s three-day debate on that timeless favourite, electoral reform, showed our beloved leaders at their best – indulging in hour after hour of nest-feathering.
The clouds which wafted around the chamber were the fluffiest imaginable in the best tradition of Disney cartoonists, while the cuckoos perched on the rim of the public gallery tweeting their tune and whistling in unison – in total disregard to the seasons – to their hearts content.

When the long-overdue final credits rolled, the Constables and Deputies’ gravy trains were securely coupled for their journeys back to the parishes, leaving the only truly democratically elected representatives facing a cull.

Not only was this a retrograde step, it was also a severe blow for whatever miniscule ability the ‘popular vote’ ever had to exert any influence in the States.

Am I bothered? Not really, because with a government acknowledged for and well practised in the art of boomerang politics, this time next year the entire process in whatever form will be back on the agenda.

I can’t remember the exact moment I lost the plot – most probably just after prayers. Now don’t get the wrong idea that I am one of those saddos who always tunes into the States, as I do not listen entirely out of choice. It is on at work and the dull, monotonous ramblings of Members who never know when to stop tends to wash over me like traffic noise.

At least when I covered the shambles of the States in my past incarnation as a news reporter, I was paid for the inconvenience and occasionally it was a good laugh. It wasn’t meant to be, but there you are – you can find a modicum of humour in any happening, no matter how unpleasant.

The problem with letting politicians decide the composition of a government is that they are unlikely to ever do anything that may have a detrimental effect on their cosy lifestyles.

Which is why they are adverse to holding referendums to decide the structure of the House, yet held one previously, and at considerable public expense, to ascertain if Islanders were inclined to switch to Central European Time.

Which just goes to prove that, in addition to keeping gravy trains on the rails, they have got the hang of two other arts – paying lip service to democracy, and patronising the plebs.

There are occasions when I need a little time to grasp a plot, so can someone please explain how being governed by a majority of politicians elected by the residents of particular parochial constituencies – and in some instances by just a couple of hundred votes – is more democratic than an Island-wide mandate?

By the very nature of their offices, Constables and Deputies are elected to represent a parish or part thereof. If they want to succeed in the job, he or she must focus on their constituents’ back gardens.

On the other hand, Senators operate in a macro sphere encompassing all the parishes, without the distraction of micro demands. Ergo, they are less likely to be distracted from the important issues that affect the whole community – such as inflation, plugging the financial black hole and providing essential services – whereas Constables and Deputies exist to deal with the problems of individual constituents, planning applications, parish assemblies and all the other minutiae that is part and parcel of their roles.

Politicians are elected the world over to represent electoral districts which is why, for example, in spite of devolution, a Welsh, Scottish or English MP can become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. However, this happens within a political party framework in which politicians are elected on a mandate to govern in the interests of the union of British nations.

In our system of government by 53 diverse individuals, the only way democracy and the interests of all Islanders can be best served is by politicians elected predominantly by all the parishes to represent the entire Island community. To achieve this, Jersey should keep the Constables and replace all the Deputies with Senators, elected on the same day and for five-year terms.

There is one debate on political reform which has been worth following, and it wasn’t on this little rock. The UK Coalition’s electoral reform bill has been testing the stamina of members of the House of Lords ,who have been discussing it day and night.

If approved as proposed – a return favour, being rushed through with insufficient public or political consultation, to the Lib Dems for propping up David Cameron’s cabinet – constituency boundaries will be redrawn and 50 seats lost.

Opposition peers, aided by Tory and Lib Dem renegades, have been using all the legal tricks and ploys in their power as parliamentarians and in the public’s interest to filibuster the bill and, thereby, force the cabinet into a compromise.

This highly entertaining spectacle has entailed subjecting every clause of the bill to minute scrutiny, with peers speaking for hours on end to effectively ‘talk’ the bill out of the legislative timetable.

It was political poetry in motion performed by masters of the art, and a joy to behold.

After three hours spent debating just one amendment of the controversial bill, one exasperated Conservative baroness questioned what had been achieved, as nothing had been decided.

I wonder what she would make of our debating chamber, where time wasting is common practice and serves no purpose whatsoever?