Battle looming over reform body?

Saturday 31st December 2011, 2:56PM GMT.

Senator Sir Philip Bailhache is the Chief Minister's favoured candidate for the job

CHIEF Minister Ian Gorst could face a battle to get poll-topping Senator Sir Philip Bailhache appointed as head of the planned electoral commission into States reform.

The States reform committee is due to meet next Tuesday, with plans for the new commission on the agenda.

And they have to decide whether to change the rules so that Senator Bailhache can chair the commission.

The March proposition calling for an electoral commission specified that it should be ‘independent’, but Senator Gorst wants Senator Bailhache to chair it.

The electoral commission will be given the job of coming up with plans to make sense of the question of States reform – a task that has eluded politicians for more than a decade.

Read the full story in the Jersey Evening Post. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are also available online.

1
Zoro

December 31, 2011 at 6:30 pm

MR Gorst..you are rapidly wiping out any good will I may have afforded you, Secrecy over obscene payments to leave….now this….we are still reeling from the removal of [protection on listed buildings now meaning absolutely nothing as money becomes the only recognisable God in jersey…the milk marketing board site we all know what happened there…where is the integrity……how will the electorate respect any rules at all if they are juggled in order to suit avarice agendas……making repect for establishment and rule of law meaningless cynical ploys to feed the fat cats yet again…this is indeed very serious…a crisis of confidence can bring this Govt down around your ears quicker that you may think.

Report abuse
2
Victor Meldrew

December 31, 2011 at 8:03 pm

Electoral reform is long overdue.Senator Bailhache was elected on that ticket and if certain States members are against his heading that electoral commission through self interest, they will be acting against democracy.

Report abuse
- sb is compromised
  
  January 1, 2012 at 5:48 pm
  
  Yes it’s overdue, but it’s quite obvious that it needs to be an independent review. SB wants to head that commission BECAUSE of self-interest! He couldn’t be in a more compromised position – even more than the other politicians. Wake up people.
  
  Report abuse
3
small business

January 1, 2012 at 8:41 am

Must be independant so no “turkeys not voting for Christmas” syndrome.
We know already this man supports Constables staying in the States so how can he be seen to be independant.

Report abuse
4
Mark

January 1, 2012 at 11:36 am

Given that the Report by Lord Carswell has yet to be enacted, I am not Sir Phillip is the right man. Too many vested interests.

Report abuse
5
Perspicuous

January 1, 2012 at 10:14 pm

Placing anyone who has already declared their stance is asking for trouble. Ipso facto, electing Senator B to chair that panel would be an endorsement of his declared views. It would amount to being a clear mandate.

Far better for the good Senator to represent his views before a commission duly established independent of the Assembly.

Report abuse
6
Scrutineer

January 2, 2012 at 8:17 am

The greater the independence the better, in principle. However, of course, if there is too much ‘independence’ and enough States Members do not like the results, one might just end up in a situation where they stonewall all change.

Report abuse
7
Tim South

January 2, 2012 at 11:45 am

Perspicuous is correct, Frank Walker was also correct in his view to Lord Carswell ( a report so far ignored ) in that the Bailiff is conflicted wearing two hats and my view is that the head of the greffe when he acts as speaker in the states does an excellent job and costs the public far less money.

Senator Bailhache also spoke to Lord Carswell wanting nothing changed and also spoke at hustings saying that all politicians are truthful. Although well meaning reality must strike at some point.

Clearly not the man to head the reform of the electoral commission surely CM Gorst can see as chairman Senator Bailhache would be conflicted after giving out such draconian views.

Tim

Report abuse
- Mark
  
  January 2, 2012 at 4:57 pm
  
  Spot on Tim and Perspicuous.
  
  As former chief justice and Privy Councillor you could not be more independent than Lord Carswell. Read the supporting learned opinion from senior constitutional lawyers who point out that the Bailiff sitting in the states chamber breaches human rights judgements made in Strasberg. As a former Bailiff Sir Phillip may be popular but is still probably wrong. The Jersey electorate deserve better than brainwashed like a flock of dumb sheep.
  
  Report abuse
  - Queen's Counsel
    
    January 3, 2012 at 8:55 pm
    
    If you think that the Carswell panel was independent then you should have another look at the transcripts. The panel failed to ask questions where it was glaringly obvious that they should have done so. In such cases, an often facile comment by a Crown Officer was accepted without any enquiry or probing by the panel. On the other hand, other figures who gave evidence were fairly grilled by the panel.
    
    One panel member is related to a former Bailiff.
    
    The ineffectiveness of the panel, together with the disparity when dealing with perceived different classes of witness, is there for all to see.
    
    Report abuse
    - Mark
      
      January 4, 2012 at 7:46 am
      
      I think we are all agreed, the panel should truly independent.
      
      Lord Carswell may have been imperfect, but he was a better choice than Sir Philip Bailhache. Ian Gorst’s proposition should be rejected.
      
      Report abuse
    - Henry
      
      January 4, 2012 at 11:42 am
      
      We could obviously do with another review because the Carswell panel did such a dreadful job with its non-existent questioning of the witnesses.
      
      Report abuse
8
Jerry Gosselin

January 3, 2012 at 12:02 am

Nobody should be in any doubt what this decision means- it is a backdoors rescindment of Deputy Wimberley’s proposition to create an Electoral Commission. If they are successful in changing the rules to allow the former Bailiff to chair it, THERE WILL BE NO MEANINGFUL REFORM OF THE STATES, so there would be no point in going ahead and wasting money on creating the Commission in the first place. It is either an Electoral Commission without a politician chairing it, or no Electoral Commission. The whole thing would be a SHAM in its amended form- you might just as well give Bailhache the power to appoint all the other members as well because the end-result will be HIS idea of reform anyway.

Then when he finally reaches his conclusion on what that reform will be (e.g. get rid of some urban- NOT rural- Deputies seats and replace them with Senators, keep the Constables etc.) a vast sum of money will have to be wasted on conducting an island referendum in which genuine reformers like myself will have the dilemma of voting against the reforms to stop urban voters losing even more of their existing franchise rights.

Once again, the poor voters of St Clement, St Helier and St Brelade (who are under-represented in the legislature as a proportion of their populations) have been SHAFTED good and proper by the country alliance. I guess it’s time to start lobbying our school children about electoral reform- they’ve got more chance of changing things than we have.

Report abuse
- roger phlegm
  
  January 3, 2012 at 11:00 am
  
  Jerry,
  The only way to ensure equal representation is to only have island wide representation. I can’t see what is wrong with 18 senators, 6 elected every 2 years. Have a ban on people who have lost at one election standing at the next one to prevent the same candidates clogging up the system.
  
  If we “need” to have constables then they should be a non-voting advisory body to the States rather than a blocking body.
  
  Report abuse
  - Jerry Gosselin
    
    January 4, 2012 at 11:00 pm
    
    I have always been in favour of keeping a mix of Senators (island mandate) and Deputies (parish/constituency mandate) because if you are unlucky enough to live in one of the rural parishes and don’t support the official government shoe-in candidate, you are effectively disenfranchised without the option of a separate islandwide election.
    
    However, I cannot understand how a purely islandwide mandate would benefit anyone other than existing politicians, particularly the wealthier ones. Why? Because until the 2011 changes, you only had to finish in the top six to get in- and that is with only a QUARTER of the seats elected on an island basis. Logically, if we had about 50 seats elected on the island basis (with half of these elected every 3 years, for example), then a candidate might only have to finish in the top 25 to become a States Member! This would see people like Stuart Syvret, Darius Pearce and even Chris Whitworth elected to office. It would be virtually impossible for a sitting Minister to lose his seat under such a system and we might even end up with an uncontested Island general election.
    
    Moreover, standing effectively in Island elections is far more expensive for candidates than standing in parish elections and therefore an all-island mandate would prove to be even more biased in favour of the wealthier, pro-government candidates than is already the case. It would be a totally retrograde step… so I suppose Bailhache will soon be giving your idea a great deal of thought!
    
    Report abuse
9
JKHT

January 3, 2012 at 9:20 am

This is bad move on the part of Gorst. One that will not sit well with many of the public.

This review is supposed to be independant of political influence. For any politician to be chairing this review is wrong.

For the rules to be bent to allow Bailhache to chair the review, a man with a publically stated bias regarding this topic, would be nothing short of an insult to the public.

Report abuse
10
Zoro

January 3, 2012 at 2:05 pm

This farce is at the root of all that is wrong in Jersey…no adherence to rules and principals….it is why the rest of the civilized world view us as medieval and peers into our murky buisness with a jaundiced eye…you can’t achieve the principal of integrity with force ..either you got it or you don’t…and we don’t….to have Philip Baillache do this given his published views and previously conflicted positions is monstrous and would serve only to establish to the rest of the world that we indeed are not fit to manage our own affairs….for with power comes responsibility not only to do right but be seen to do so…

Report abuse