Constable’s Elections

Some boundary streams in a Constable painting

Constable’s Elections

Some interesting discussions online on Facebook, after Monty Tadier posted:

“This is the sad state of rural Jersey politics where such a headline is possible: the news is no longer that there will be a contested election in St Martin, but that there is any candidate prepared to do the job at all. Like some of the other smaller parishes, they are mathematically over-represented in the States, as shown by electoral reform reports, time after time: yet they continue to have two representatives, whilst St Helier, St Clement and St Saviour are under-represented (but contested).”

“This will surely be the last election carried out with ancient constituency boundaries dictated by streams and the pre-reformation church establishment. We need fair votes, fair representation and a simplified electoral system.”

I asked the question why Reform are targetting easy urban options and are not themselves fielding candidates for Constable?

Nick Le Cornu told me that he had contested an election: “In 1996 I stood for Constable of St Brelade: to give the electorate a choice and jump start a contested election. Thirty years later nothing has changed and most Constables today will be elected without a contest”

But another commentator argued that they would not stand for a post that they wanted abolished:

“Given Monty Tadiers comment in the initial post it appears that they believe Jersey traditions such as Constables sitting in the States should be abolished which would explain why they are not going for any Constables seats. Perhaps they should also allow Jerriais to fall by the wayside at the same time. Also Constables have a real job to do in running the Parish and I suspect some of Reforms' candidates may struggle with that.”

Another wanted some role for the Constable’s in the legislature:

“I’d agree to the equal sized constituencies and one type of States Member. Can’t fault that.  I’ve also got a traditionalist respect for the Parish system and the Committe des Connetables and would propose some kind of upper house containing the Connetables spearheading a second scrutiny type role.”

Meanwhile the same commentator as before argued forcibly that Reform had good reasons for not fielding any candidate for Constable:

“It isn’t a ‘Jersey tradition’ to have Constables in the States, it’s a part of an outdated, gerrymandered anti-democratic system that ensures the dominance of conservative rural parishes at the expense of people in town. They’re not going for Constable seats as they believe Constables shouldn’t be in the States - it’s a matter of principle. Don’t even start on Jerriais - Reform are virtually the only ones talking about preserving it.”

The trouble with excusing particular positions is that history can have a nasty way of undermining them. As Reform are now contesting St Brelade’s Constable seat, I shall await with interest the answer to my question

“Having given me reasons why Reform are not contesting a Constable's election, can anyone tell me why they actually are, given all the reasons why not?”

It is even more acute because 10 of the 12 Constable's seats are not contested. Why not? Clearly there is no principle by which Reform would say they would not contest a seat they wanted abolished from the States, as they are fielding one candidate in St Brelade. Why have they not contested more Constable's seats? If Reform are going to complain, we deserve an answer.

Of course the main problem here is the Constable’s Referendum. According to Russell Labey it was held at the same time as a general election, which was a bad idea because people’s minds were on other things. Evidently the average voter is incapable of multitasking!!

In fact, one reason it was held then was to ensure a good turnout. As the ABC Referendum on States Reform showed, if you hold a Referendum at another time, the turnout is rubbish. The ABC Referendum was voted against in the States because the turnout was considered too low. No one could say that about the Constable’s referendum. So other excuses are found for the result.

It is true thought, that if Reform had supported the No Campaign, it would have been stronger. Indeed talk of a Referendum was enough to rouse Mike Dun who said that:

“Reform boycotted the vote in 2014 that led to the Yes - No Referendum and then boycotted the official Referendum that might have ended the Constables farce once and for all.”

Monty Tadier countered:

“Not really true, Mike. We took a position on it and had the ‘Non Mèrcie’ logo on all our literature. But we did not have the resources of the pro-Constable business party to be able to run an election campaign and a campaign on a (biased and flawed) referendum question at the same time”

But Mike came back:

“More untruth - all candidates had a view of course but there was an official Yes - No Referendum which Reform decided to boycott from the outset. You could have and should have supported the official No campaign and so have helped to challenge the establishment. Reform had of course voted against the Referendum taking place at all. Such is the hypocrisy.”

I am glad we have a contested election for Constable in St Brelade. Contests are always good for democracy, although it does seem strange that the candidate for Constable wants to remove the Constables from the States.  Would they stand if the Constable’s were not in the States?

In 2017, St Peter Port had a contested election for Constable. The current Constable, Jenny Tasker,  retained her post at the St Peter Port parish elections. Constable Tasker defeated Rosemary Henderson with 280 votes to 72. There was a 5% turnout, with 352 people voting - this compares to 376 people last year. There are 7,040 voters.

There really isn’t a Parish system in Guernsey. And recently St Peter Port struggled to get all the Parish posts elected.  Something to ponder.