More Election Odd and Ends

More Election Odd and Ends

Kristina Moore – Part 1: The Missing Issue...

Kristina Moore has a most singular manifesto. It hardly mentions Jersey’s population, the problems of overpopulation, and the impact on the Island’s infrastructure. All that can be gleaned are:

“Seek a balance between protecting our environment and providing for a growing population”

“Ensure access to a highly skilled workforce”, which presumably has a relationship with numbers of licences give out and hence population.

Even on Election call, she was notable vague about the population, while ever other manifesto I have seen has at least a paragraph or two upon the subject. Most candidates mention work permits of some form or another, some have quite detailed proposals on the work that needs to be done.

Perhaps she does not want her hands tied in anyway regarding migration issues in ways that might bind her.

After all, she voted the same way as Paul Routier on 98% of occasions, and he was the one responsible for the Ponzi idea that you could address an ageing population mainly by letting lots more people into Jersey.

In June 2017, she said that she was “amused” by claims that she has a “plan” to become the Island's first female Chief Minister. But perhaps she may reconsider depending on her election showing, and whether or not Ian Gorst is re-elected to the States.

I remember Neil Kinnock saying he did not seek high office, and 3 years later, he was Leader of the Labour Party. A week is a long time in politics, and a politician’s decision is subject to rapid change.

An Interlude: John Le Fondre on Population

Population features with its own page on his website.

This is by way of example, to show the kind of subject you might expect a politician standing for election to have, and it is singularly lacking from Kristina Moore’s website:

·         This is a key issue for the future of the Island.

·         Projected population increase of 26,000 by 2035 if trends continue.

·         The proposed policy – lodged March 2018 – lacks detail and performance measures.

·         There needs to be greater consultation, particularly with industry which needs flexibility regarding work permits.

·         It also clearly shows we need to be doing even more to train up local skills, including apprenticeships.

·         Firstly, we need to properly understand the contribution that is made by individuals arriving in Jersey, and resolve existing anomalies in our system as to how and when people can access services.

·         We need a mechanism to ensure an optimal population size, but one that maintains our quality of life, the sustainability of our environment and the protection of open spaces.

·         We will have to ‘grasp the nettle’ as to how we manage immigration. There is no ‘one solution’ – there needs to be a collaborative approach to achieving a solution acceptable to all.

Kristina Moore – Part 2: Championing the needs of our elders

And now back to Kristina's manifesto.

It is interesting that she has: “championing the needs of our elders” in her manifesto.

This is someone who voted against retaining the Christmas bonus for all pensioners, and also against a means-tested Christmas Bonus when that proposition was brought to keep it for the most needy.

In 2015, Judy Martin successfully also managed to keep the means tested free TV licences for the elderly when Deputy Susie Pinel wanted to remove them altogether.

“After the words “as set out in Summary Table C” insert the words “except that the net revenue expenditure of the Chief Minister’s Department and the Treasury and Resources Department should be reduced in 2016 in the sum of £90,000 and £67,000 respectively and the net revenue expenditure of the Social Security Department be increased by £157,000 to fund the continued provision of means-tested free television licences for the over-75s.”

Despite “championing the needs of our elders”, Kristina Moore voted against it.

I’m not sure quite how removing those extras which are means tested and which help the hardest up pensioners actually helps to championing the needs of our elders, but then I’m not a politician.

As for the rest of the manifesto, it is a nice wish-list but almost totally devoid of content., for example:

"Celebrate our traditional industries and create the right environment for further diversification"

"Promoting healthier lifestyles and wellbeing choices"

It reminds me of the Forer effect. This is a common psychological phenomenon whereby individuals give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically to them but that are, in fact, vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people.

This manifesto is, I’m afraid, the political equivalent of the Forer effect, lots that everyone can agree to, but it just headline stuff which everyone, even Reform, might agree to!

Nastiest Manifesto

Barry Shelton, who uses 61 of  his limited word length of 500 words to attack Geoff Southern - but not on policy:

“Finally, here’s a thought for the supporters of Reform. Candidates Geoff Southern and his wife are hoping to get elected with a total salary and expenses of around £100,000 from the States. Add to that their existing old age pensions and teachers’ pensions, (say £50,000) then he doesn’t seem quite the flat capped man of the people he attempts to portray!”

Attacking policy, or the lack of it, is one thing, but attacking people in person in your manifesto in this very direct way seems singularly unpleasant. This is “personality politics” at its most unsavoury.

Mr Shelton presents himself as a successful businessman. Perhaps those wanting to assess Mr Shelton's suitability for election might ask him about his business, the Anchor Trust and whether he now thinks the JFSC was right in its decision on that.
http://www.comsuregroup.com/download/Anchor%20Trust%20Company%20Limited%20v%20Jersey%20Financial%20Services%20Commisson.pdf

Social Media: Frank Walker and Terry Le Main

Frank and Fiona Walker were reviewing the papers on Sunday 22nd April, and Frank was saying that while politicians attract flak, the level of abuse and allegations about corruption etc was enough to deter some good people from coming forward.

I wonder if Frank will have a word with his former colleague, and past Housing Minister, Terry Le Main, who posted this diatribe on Facebook. I have removed the names, but needless to say it is politicians standing for election. It is Terry in full-scale rant mode, and it is not a pretty sight.

“How can you TRUST dodgy background XXXXX who was fined £10,000 in the Royal Court for deliberately breaking the law and DEPUTY XXXXX  who is a friend of "CLOSE JERSEY FINANCE DOWN " spivs ATTACC, TAX JUSTICE NETWORK,RICHARD MURPHY etc..he who entertained ATTACC FRANCE when they held an anti Jersey Finance conferences some years ago followed by hitting the French Press Headlines with anti Jersey comments.. and finally their Leader and GURU who is an avowed supporter of LEFT WING CORBYN and a member of the Labour party. Reform Jersey are 100% Left wing Socialists..and there is no place for such views etc in a place like JERSEY. Voting for them is gambling with our childrens future..SHOW THEM THE RED CARD...BE SAFE...

While some of the facts are indisputable, words like “dodgy background” or "spiv" suggest that the politician in question manages, like Arthur Daley in Minder, to avoid going to prison, but who sails very close to the wind. And while a Deputy did brief Attac and a French newspaper in the past, how far back do we go when assessing someone on current policies? 

After all, in a notable case of pot calling kettle black, Terry Le Main broke the Data Protection Law on several occasions, and also lost his post as Minister for Housing over a briefing to the Court on a Housing infraction in which his States colleagues saw a clear conflict of interest.

Does he want to be reminded of that? Perhaps Frank could have a word with his old chum, and tell him not to be part of abuse and invective on social media!