| Author |
Message |
Peter Garfield
Guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2010 - 10:24 am: |   |
VERY occasionally I read a letter in Open Lines that not only makes a lot of sense but reflects the concerns of many islanders. It was therefore refreshing, yet somewhat alarming, to read the recent letter from John Neale entitled ‘Stop pinching pennies’.
In his letter, Mr Neale quite rightly highlights the inability of the States of Deliberation to recognise, or, more to the point, understand the serious nature of the looming problems that the island faces and therefore put in place measures now to minimise the impact, rather than adopt the ostrich approach that it is so well known for.
I cannot help thinking back to the days when the tomato was king and the view at that time that the industry, which was a mainstay for the economy, could not fail. Fortunately, when it did, the embryonic finance industry was there to save the bacon, which was fortuitous but unplanned.
Mr Neale is so right when he highlights the apparent resistance of the Treasury and Resources Department to act in reducing the cost of the civil service, an action that anyone with any sense, with perhaps the exception of those who work there, recognises.
The island simply cannot afford to bear such a cost if it is to have any chance of prospering in the future.
I, for one, am very disappointed in the performance of our Treasury and Resources minister, who is simply not getting to grips with the tasks required. Simply nibbling at the edges and penny pinching is not good enough and his apparent personal agreement with ‘Del Boy’ Coates to sell off the silverware in the form of Aurigny to the private sector will have major implications for us all in the future. It is ironic that the law of Mr Parkinson’s famous economist namesake that ‘work expands so as fill the time available for its completion’ can so readily be applied to what goes on in the States and its departments.
Still at least we can seek some solace in the fact that all will be well in the future due to the fact that our chief minister continues to have cups of tea with many unknown and non influential public figures in the UK.
PETER GARFIELD.
garfieldgsy@ cwgsy.net |
B. C. Tough
Guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2010 - 03:20 pm: | |
WHAT has happened to Guernsey’s administration? Who is in charge? Who employs whom?
The impression one gets from ordinary life is that we have no representation in government. The deputy is elected by public ballot but so are many third-world governments and they only represent their chosen few and ignore the uninfluential rest, except at election time.
Guernsey States deputies used to be elected by the people to represent the people, were usually unpaid except to compensate for expenses incurred, and, most importantly, they generally kept the civil servants in order.
In 2000, an unelected party chose to change all this. Guernsey deputies are now paid as professional politicians and are controlled by the civil service. Many of the public now feel that the civil service make the rules and the deputies are the shield to any public disgust.
The frightening result is a constant drain on public finances and a constant increase in taxation to the point that taxation is seen to be collected as theft with menaces.
There is no department of the present Guernsey government that can be said to represent the majority of public opinion, and giving value for money.
Liberated – who is? Certainly not the Guernsey person.
B. C. TOUGH. |
Gary Blanchford
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2010 - 03:18 pm: | |
I TOTALLY agree with the leader in the Guernsey Press of Saturday 21 August 2010 regarding the keeping of a States register of attendance. If anything the current system should be streamlined so as the statistics reflect a more accurate account of attendance.
SACC has estimated that around £3,000 a year could be saved, being the cost to put the figures together. Compare that £3,000 to gain useful statistics of how our deputies are representing us against the up to £120,000 allowed to entertain around 20 politicians for one day with lunch for the British Irish Conference in June. (I know, it cost around £60,000 in the end, but up to £120,000 had been allowed) which is of no real practical use to Guernsey, and I think it puts things into perspective.
Openness and transparency is what Guernsey’s government preaches but fails to deliver. Keep the statistics on States attendance and push forward the freedom of information law if you want to retain any credibility.
GARY BLANCHFORD,
gblanchford@ cwgsy.net |
Matt Waterman
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 02:20 pm: | |
I DON’T write this letter with the primary objective of scoring points off Bernard Flouquet with cheap shots, but while I’m here: in your 5 August issue and during the course of his attempted answer regarding the question of his firefighters U-turn, Deputy Flouquet is quoted as saying: ‘I do not share Mr Waterman’s rather narrow view regarding the inclination of islanders to seek out the relevant information.’
Actually, I think the fact that the Environment Department revealed on 4 August that the number of people who had responded to their invitation to the public for submissions regarding taxi fares was one, backs up what I said quite well. Or maybe everyone else was so busy reading the Billet and firefighters’ tribunal report, looking for Deputy Flouquet’s answer, that they didn’t have time to engage with Environment?
I don’t think Deputy Flouquet is one of those dreadfully bland, politically-correct, modern-day politicians who is afraid of his own shadow and of his colleagues, but his relentlessly dodgy judgement, bold humour, and regular stubbornness (shockingly absent during his PSD/EPA firefighters performance) seem to combine to land him in more than his fair share of trouble. Whenever things seem to be getting out of hand at a States meeting you’ll usually find him at the bottom of the pile somewhere.
If the States knows anything about democracy, that oft overlooked marvel of yore, then his next fearless voyage into stormy waters should come next month when the House gets its hands on the Guernsey Tomorrow project which he has been fronting.
If the gist of Simon Tostevin’s article of 5 August is accurate, the CGI chairman Peter Budwin believes that Guernsey Tomorrow’s initial summary report should go a long way in helping the States to formulate strategy in relation to land use. Why? As Mr Budwin is later quoted as saying, the consultation process involved people from outside of the island, and young people.
He’s right. I witnessed drunken student types who were here for a long weekend answering Guernsey Tomorrow questionnaires a couple of Christmases ago. Many of us may agree with the views of the majority who have partaken in Guernsey Tomorrow, but why should someone who isn’t on the electoral register and who may not even be sober or live here have the same right to tell the States what to do with land owned by the taxpayer as someone who has lived here since birth and paid tax and social security to the States of Guernsey? That’s an unacceptably dangerous precedent. ‘Representation without taxation’ may be an appropriate slogan for the likes of GIBA and the IoD, but if we’re going to have it here then frankly I don’t see why I should pay tax.
Until the States wakes up to the distinction between the electorate and the public, the electorate will continue to feel that elections and lobbying are largely a waste of time.
MATT WATERMAN. |
Anon
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2010 - 02:47 pm: | |
WITH the difficult-to-conceal joy expressed by many members of the House when the Tories returned to government in the UK, I wonder if there’s any chance the States will cut our disproportionately large civil service by 25%, like the UK Government is committed to doing? Or is it just the soft targets they are brave enough to go for, like forcing those who already work the hardest and the longest to work even longer? This being for the sole purpose of ensuring the civil service will continue in its financially secure cocoon of early retirement and fat pensions.
dave101waldo@ yahoo.co.uk. |
Matt Waterman
Guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2010 - 10:02 am: | |
CHARLES PARKINSON’S alternative would have received a massive boost to its chances of stopping zero-10 had the States waited a few weeks for a Privy Council ruling on the legality of the Isle of Man’s tax regime before the June 2006 debate took place here. But the business community and the deputies who imagined they represented it said: ‘We haven’t got time to wait for that ruling’ and zero-10 was thus unleashed.
Now there is a chance that, having indicated we will charge 10% corporation tax, we can after all hang on to zero-10 if Jersey or the Isle of Man can persuade the EU that zero-10 is actually OK, the business community is saying ‘let’s wait for the outcome of those talks and see what happens.’
While such obvious inconsistencies clearly damage what remains of big business’ credibility following the credit crunch, there’s actually no problem with business saying what’s good for business, although quite why they have to hold expensive conferences and take up so much media space to announce to everyone ‘we’ll be stronger if we don’t pay tax’ isn’t clear to me.
But hopefully this time around our politicians will recognise that it’s for the electorate, not business, to let them know which policies should be adopted by their government. After all, not only aren’t businesses on the electoral roll, at the moment most of them don’t even pay corporation tax.
MATT WATERMAN. |
Alec Forty
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2010 - 04:00 pm: | |
I’VE been a bit worried about this idea of island-wide voting because we have 45 States seats and that could mean us having to make a choice from 150 or more candidates, which wouldn’t leave any time for holidays.
But then the penny dropped. You see, we’ve got about 60,000 people here and the mainland’s got about 60 million. This is a thousand-to-one ratio and we’ve used it for a long time as a basis of comparison, i.e. if 7,000 people have dandruff on the mainland, about seven people will have it in Guernsey.
The UK Parliament has 650 seats so, using this well-established, time-proven ratio, we need 0.65 of a person in the States, or one person for 65% of his or her the time. This must be true, because if you apply the ratio the other way round, the UK Parliament would need 45,000 members.
ALEC FORTY |
Laurie Queripel
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2010 - 03:58 pm: | |
THE story so far. Zero-10 is implemented and the good ship Guernsey finds itself navigating difficult straits. Meanwhile our erstwhile shipmates, the corporate business sector, are sailing towards sunnier climes. New shipmates are piped aboard, namely consultants Tribal Helm. Their task is to identify and advise the States on possible efficiencies and savings. Here we enter murky waters.
Tribal are working on a commission basis, ergo the more their recommendations are taken on board, the greater their fee. Is it wise that the direction of the States is being heavily influenced by an organisation whose prime motivation is its own financial gain? Would not such an organisation be tempted to advise indiscriminate, swingeing cuts and savings that may fly in the face of good economic, social and environmental policy and possibly affect strategic stability and security?
Among other things, the proposal to greatly increase bus fares (where does this leave the traffic strategy?) comes to mind. Incidentally, Tribal’s share of the increase will be 6.5%. Another example of this drift towards a right-wing ideology is the possible sale of Aurigny. There seems to be an executive by stealth at work. This elite is not only made up of democratically-elected representatives but also a private entity with a vested interest. Add to this numerous sub-groups and quangos such as the OUR, who themselves can have an enormous and potentially detrimental influence on policy direction and plus by their actions can destabilise strategic entities – think the postal service and Guernsey Electricity. Quangos, sub-groups, consultants, all looking to justify their existence – some excess ballast here, I suggest.
There are so many ongoing programmes, the States Strategic Plan and the States Financial Transformation Programme to name but two. These programmes may be laudable in their own right but as a result, a rigid framework is being established allowing no ‘wiggle room’, denying the opportunity to create initiatives, new services or service enhancement (frustrating for those who seek true economic diversity, wish to develop opportunities for local entrepreneurs and the creative industries, provide genuine, material support for local retail and industry, promote sustainable living, address the issues of mental heath, domestic abuse and animal welfare and protect Guernsey’s heritage).
In reality, what follows in the wake of this course is a strangling of the democratic process. It’s worrying when something close to the ‘full steam ahead’ order is given to proposed projects such as an electronic land registry (this has a ‘toys for the boys, we can do it so we should’ feel about it – exactly what crisis is being reacted to?) and an electronic census database (this goes way beyond the parameters of a conventional census, which contains only objective facts, i.e. name, address, date of birth, employment status. Medical records should be completely off-limits, there are privacy and security issues here). What are those steering the vessel hoping to achieve?
By all means usher in efficient, effective government, where savings are made by eliminating duplication, improving the procurement process and removing unnecessary bureaucracy, but savings shouldn’t be an end onto themselves, they mustn’t become the ultimate obsession. The aspiration should be to deliver good quality, value-for-money services. The ‘contract’ between the taxpayer and the government demands this.
The standard of front-line services should be sacrosanct. Savings and efficiencies should be made without short-changing the community or penalising the most vulnerable within our society: the lower paid, the elderly and those in genuinely poor health.
There is a marked difference between running a tight ship and one that is either going around in circles or has run aground. Government by consultancy concerns me. Politicians are elected to accept responsibility, not relinquish it. This present course will not yield greater accountability, transparency or holistic working – the more likely destination perhaps being a form of taxation without representation.
LAURIE QUERIPEL.
l.b.l.w.27q@ amserve.com.
GP Editor’s footnote: The Treasury and Resources Department’s deputy minister, Jack Honeybill, confirmed that Tribal can only make recommendations and
those are subject to careful scrutiny at political level.
Any recommendations with far-reaching implications for change will be considered by the States of Deliberation on the back of detailed business cases to enable informed, evidence-based decisions to be made.
Programmes and plans including the States Strategic Plan and the Financial Transformation Programme have also been subject to debate and approval by the States of Deliberation.
Together, these two initiatives are facilitating investment by the States in new service developments while at the same time ensuring that essential public services are delivered in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
Deputy Honeybill said he found it difficult to understand how all of this can lead someone to the conclusion that there was a ‘strangling of the democratic process’. |
Anon
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - 04:35 pm: | |
OH, THE dream of being employed by the civil service. An inside view from an outsider with many friends in offices.
It must be such an idyllic lifestyle not being allowed an opinion in public, working in conditions whereby simple things such as air conditioning don’t function properly and you approach your desk wearing wellingtons if it’s rained the night before. The States have done such a smashing job for their employees that they even treat them as guilty before being proved innocent when allegations have been made. But fear not friends, at least you have a good pension to look forward to if you make it to retirement age.
Many colleagues who have retired have not been replaced as a money saving exercise and you are given more work and no overtime to do it in as there’s no budget left. So doesn’t it make you happy to learn that the mental health laws are being upgraded? Just in time, I say. I hope they employ enough doctors to cope with people having mental breakdowns over work issues.
PS. Have you noticed that most of the job adverts for the civil service have the wage excluded? Oh, you may say, that’s because they must apply solely based on the love of the job.
Name and address withheld. |
Matt Waterman
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2010 - 01:52 pm: | |
I DON’T know if he did it out of habit or if he doesn’t want the public to know the answer, but Bernard Flouquet’s published response to my letter in the Guernsey Press on 20 July fell distinctly short of what one would reasonably expect from a government that claims to be trying to promote a culture of openness and accountability.
To briefly recap, Deputy Flouquet rejected a deal with the airport firefighters on day one and agreed the same deal in different company on day two. Deputy Brouard remarked on this in the House and received no response. The media questioned it also and were told the question would be answered only if an enquiry took place. I have now asked the question again in the aforementioned letter and received the response, ‘this point is dealt with in the (enquiry) report... Published in the Billet d’Etat for the April 2010 States meeting’.
Why do politicians continually make it hard for the electorate to reach the truth? What is wrong with simply answering the question directly and in public?
In his response to my question he – or whoever composed the reply – used 200 words without telling us why he changed his mind. I would guess that Deputy Flouquet knows very well that the number of people (especially those without easy access to the internet) who will spend time obtaining the Billet/report and then trawling through it to find the tribunal’s interpretation of his answer won’t reach double figures, whereas if he gave the answer in the Press it would be read by hundreds, probably thousands. Even some deputies don’t know the answer, and if they haven’t found the information, how can we laymen be expected to keep up to speed?
So again I give Deputy Flouquet the platform to answer the question in public: ‘why did you change your mind?’
To simply say that the matter has been dealt with and the details can be found in the April Billet is inadequate. It’s rather like being asked your name and replying ‘details are on my birth certificate, a copy of which can be located at the Greffe’.
MATT WATERMAN
PS – Contrasting sharply with Deputy Flouquet’s rather bland, lifeless and corporate performance, congratulations to the GMCCC on a well run and particularly exciting and dramatic National Hillclimb championship meeting the other weekend. Records falling everywhere, Tim Tulie’s wall of death tactics at the top, 2009 winner Chris Guille accelerating when he meant to brake into the final bend and Will Wall finishing backwards at every opportunity – it was great to watch. And Paul Ranson reportedly reaching 100mph before braking for the first corner after the standing start. It’s just a shame that, witnessed by his family, who had travelled at the last minute when he got within reach of the total in Jersey, half Guernseyman Martin Groves crashed heavily just a few yards before he would almost certainly have become the first man to win 100 rounds, at the same venue as he won his first and where he also equalled the previous record of 90. |
Deputy Bernard Flouquet
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2010 - 02:08 pm: | |
This point is dealt with in the report produced by the independent Tribunal of Enquiry, which includes a full record of the events leading up to the industrial action taken by the airport firefighters last year and the subsequent actions.
This comprehensive report was published in the Billet d’Etat for the April 2010 States meeting and provides a detailed analysis of the various actions taken and the decisions made by all the parties, including myself and the Public Services Department board, and the reasons for so doing.
In addition to the report itself, detailed information on the evidence submitted to the tribunal can be found at www.tribunalofenquiry.gg.
The matter has subsequently been the subject of a States debate, which was broadcast live on the radio and reported in the Guernsey Press.
Without going through the process of quoting extensively from the report and the written submissions, there is nothing further to add.
The only comment I would wish to make is that the Pubic Services Department is pleased that a long term resolution to the situation has been secured.
Deputy Bernard Flouquet |
Matt Waterman
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2010 - 02:07 pm: | |
WHEN the six deputies who thought they were the Emergency Powers Authority but weren’t intervened in the airport firefighters’ dispute, a number of questions were immediately asked. For example, one of the six, Deputy Flouquet, was asked why he opposed the same deal in his role as PSD minister, which he approved in his supposed EPA role a matter of hours later.
His reply, printed in your newspaper at the time, was that the question would be answered in the course of any enquiry into the matter which took place.
An expensive enquiry has taken place and I see no answer.
Please invite the minister to explain publicly why this is and what the answer to the question is.
MATT WATERMAN,
watermanmm@ hotmail.com |
Anthony J. Hemans
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2010 - 03:35 pm: | |
I WRITE as a member of the Guernsey Reform Group in the hope of canvassing two points with your readers.
The decision of the States not to pursue one or other of the three proposals of the States Assembly and Constitution Committee for island-wide voting for deputies was understandable but will, hopefully, change before the next election.
While members of GRG seek a reduction in reliance upon off-island consultants in favour of tapping into the wealth of local expertise, taking guidance from The Electoral Reform Society, even at this late stage, could allow SACC to return to the States with a set of clear-cut recommendations supported by many years of experience from this internationally respected body.
I apologise in advance if this path has already been trodden but the two enquiries, which were made, have failed to illicit a response.
My own reading of the situation is that the Electoral Reform Society could well be of a view similar to that of Deputy Hadley, in that some form of single transferable vote may best address our particular needs. Interested readers may like to visit ers@electoral-reform.org.uk.
Secondly, the objectives of the Guernsey Reform Group are clearly set out on our web-site www.guernseyreformgroup.org.gg but it is important to explain that, while GRG is a highly active pressure group, it will not become involved in party politics, which it sees as being completely at odds with the ways of our island. Rather, its purpose is to encourage what so many people articulate, the need to field a range of the very best possible candidates at the next election. Yes, there are a number of common objectives, such as fewer and better-paid States members, greater accountability, collective responsibility and transparency, reducing government expenditure where possible and so on, but foremost is the need for our government to be cohesive, effective and compassionate, whether that be as a result of making a consensus model work properly, or otherwise. If and when the electorate demonstrates its wish that these values be embraced, through the ballot box, the purpose of the GRG will probably have been achieved.
We have a dialogue with some existing and potential members of the States. Anyone considering putting themselves forward at the next election is welcome to contact us.
ANTHONY J. HEMANS |
D. Lane
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2010 - 03:23 pm: | |
RECENT multi media publicity by Deputy O’Hara draws attention to the lack of funds for undertaking even basic conservation and storage, let alone the provision for public display and research facilities, of the Bailiwick’s rich historical and archaeological inheritance.
That this inheritance, held in trust for future generations, is unique and significant in both the context of its European neighbours and globally has repeatedly been declared by visitors, including academics of international renown, throughout the last 30 years and well publicised to that effect. During those three decades, Guernsey became disproportionately wealthy, a fact also well publicised, and it also possessed a political/ administrative forum for the care of its history and archaeology, initially in the form of the Ancient Monuments Committee and culminating in the (now extinct) Heritage Department.
Why, then, is it that Deputy O’Hara needs to hold out the begging bowl when such obviously essential facilities should long since have been provided at the time when other States departments were so awash with cash that they were inventing ways of spending it? Why is it considered acceptable for our generation to be expected to assume a right of mere ownership and by inference therefore of disposal, when, in reality, as custodians we’re entitled to the higher privilege of handing down the irreplaceable treasure of their own ancestry to our grandchildren? Why should the latter be denied the dignity of their own defining identity through the history and archaeology of their islands, when this situation is not of their making any more than its results from the present economic climate?
The obvious answer to each of these questions is that among the powerbrokers and money merchants within the States/civil service, our heritage has counted and continues to count for nothing. Which is why we have been progressively seduced by an anglicised bureaucracy into accepting the ‘local yokel’ identity comprising of bean jar and ‘hedge veg’ and seemingly dignified by the anachronistic portrayal in print of a Norman dialect that has survived purely as a spoken language for a thousand years.
This interpretation is reinforced by taking into account other indicators from even just the last decade, such as the conscious destruction of historically significant States owned property, the disregard of pre-destruction archaeological analysis on States projects, legislation making the recording of undiscovered terrestrial archaeology less likely and by no means least, the use of change in the machinery of government to disperse responsibility for heritage with the larger portion being buried within Culture and Leisure. This relatively recent inhumation successfully removed the concept of ‘history and archaeology’ from the public purse ensuring permanently inadequate funding once ‘Culture’ (the arts) has picked over the few remaining bones after ‘Leisure’ (aka sport) has feasted on the carcass of the budget.
Since the opportunity is there for every generation to learn from the past, here follows such a lesson all for the politicians and civil servants in the Guernsey of today before they throw away our past, tomorrow.
Face a mirror, look yourself in the eyes and repeat 10 times: ‘Politics ought to be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage.’ Dwight Eisenhower (ex-American president).
D. LANE |
Tom Wright
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2010 - 02:16 pm: | |
‘CHANGE seldom occurs without difficulties but it is the prospect of achievement that motivates the will to overcome them.’
It must not remain a dream for every person of voting age in this island to have an equal say in the election of each and every member that populates the States of Deliberation. The possibility of achieving this will, I have no doubt, create the drive necessary among the islanders to surmount many of the ‘drawbacks’ to which those cling who fear the relative ‘purity’ of island-wide voting.
In these threatening times, the most powerful of nations in that great global ocean where we also swim but as minnows, are having to take desperate measures to prevent economic free fall. We cannot look on with smugness, thankful that we are immune to all that. History, ours in particular, tells us that we are most emphatically not.
It is for us to ensure at all costs that the so easily unseated ‘foreign’ funds and the resident service industries that house them are somehow held intact within our shores as we view the turbulent seas beyond. We need the very best people at our disposal to sit and guide the island and these are most likely to emerge as a result of the participation of all islanders through universal franchise and not by parochial machinations.
It is not really very intelligent to pick holes in proposals to bestow greater electoral power on the individual. There will always be difficulties in any system we adopt. But it is most important that critics recognise that they are in effect giving support to the continuation of a ridiculously flawed system.
It is such that it does a great disservice to island folk who have to pay dearly for the pay and expenses of the majority of deputies where they have had no say whatsoever in how they came to be there.
Let us not forget that the very first act undertaken by the newly elected at the birth of the current Chamber (probably before they knew where the cloakrooms were) was to elect, without recourse to the public, a chief minister and his deputy. Candidates where their parish elections scraped them into the States. Candidates who, had there been IWV in operation, would arguably have sunk without trace. And so this has been the thread in our governance from that day to the present. How can this be defended?
What numbskull will fail to see the anomaly of a prospective candidate being able to choose the parish in which to stand and yet parishioners may not wander off to a parish of choice to lodge their vote. Quite crackers.
How can that be defended?
We do need the best to debate our subsistence and determine our future. We cannot afford to deny ourselves this. We are small enough to adopt any system of our choosing so we must not be put off by petty fears that this or that is too hard. Those who claim thus are underestimating the intelligence of our people, especially when they are faced with having to put a little more effort in return for vastly improved electoral significance. How in the world can that be opposed?
We cannot have good people new to the States deciding to leave after a short spell simply because of disenchantment with the quality of the debating chamber. IWV should result in the best as candidates seek to convince the wider public of their proficiency for the post.
Over the years we have stood by as the significance of the parishes has inexorably been depleted by the hand of government and also the will of parishioners in many respects. Parish gathering places have been decimated in favour of more and more dwellings and the island is threatened by amorphosis into one immense housing estate. It is a matter of great sadness that this is taking place and it seems that all we have to hold onto is nostalgia and memories – thanks to a prosperous society? We destroy the character of ages for short-term benefits.
Parishes are important for our heritage and I have always proposed that within the concept of a government arising from universal plebiscite would be created a parishes department to which individual parishioners and indeed the douzaines can address parish issues. It will promise to be a far stronger machine than has ever existed in the past and should satisfy anyone who seeks to preserve the remnants of parish heritage.
The comfortable seat of complacency is disintegrating under the pressure of overweight torsos and it is mete to do something before they hit the turf with an earth-moving thump.
TOM WRIGHT. |
Herbert Winterflood
Guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 10, 2010 - 10:37 am: | |
THE recent sursis placed before the States of Deliberation, sending back the proposal for island-wide elections, was ill-conceived and nothing more than a delaying exercise.
Why not accept the report in principle, with a request to return to the States as a matter of urgency with a more-detailed proposal containing the machinery necessary to ensure a success of the venture?
Any problems concerning the workability of such voting could be debated at that stage. Now we have a situation where the States Assembly and Constitution Committee has to spend probably many hours preparing a format of how things would work should the House next time agree with island-wide voting.
I believe that such rights would give all islanders a wider choice of candidates and might well result in a more-effective government.
Also, I believe that many islanders would favour such a move.
HERBERT WINTERFLOOD |
T. I. Martin
Guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 10, 2010 - 10:35 am: | |
I WAS astonished to read that the overseas aid budget is £2.5m. I think it should be capped at £1m. per year when the States say they cannot afford colon screening and dental care for school children.
Surely charity begins at home? Come on States, get your priorities right.
T. I. MARTIN |
Deputy Leon Gallienne
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2010 - 03:19 pm: | |
Thank you for providing me the opportunity to respond to a letter received from one of your readers regarding the Public Accounts Committee role within the States of Guernsey, its resources and my own situation as a States member having alternative employment.
Firstly, in respect of the Public Accounts Committee, the committee is fully aware of the difficult position it is in while it carries out the dual role of Auditor General and Public Accounts Committee, while being part of government. Your readers may be interested to know that in other jurisdictions, one is not in place without the other, as the Auditor General will provide the independent review of government, which feeds into the Public Accounts Committee.
At the present time, the Guernsey Public Accounts Committee will commission independent third parties from a framework agreement to fulfil the duties of an Auditor General. The committee knows this is not satisfactory and is currently working on a States report to introduce an Auditor General in Guernsey to provide an independent view to help bring even greater accountability, openness and transparency. Added to which, the committee is reviewing how its own role will evolve.
The Public Accounts Committee has limited staff and financial resources and is currently advertising to bring its staffing level back to three. The States financial situation affects every department and committee within the States and the committee will try and make its own limited finance stretch as far as possible but at the same time provide a balanced programme of work to bring better value to the taxpayer.
The lack of resources influences the speed with which its reviews are delivered and its capacity to take on more work, not the ability or capability to do its ‘watchdog’ role. Your readers will be able to see this when they read the committee’s next annual report.
As far as my own situation as a States member having alternative employment, which in my case is driving a taxi, there is nothing in the rules regarding States members being prohibited from other employment, and a number of other deputies also have other employment or hold directorships. This is not the first time that I have had alternative employment since being a States member. My States duties come first and any other time not spent on States work, I may on occasions utilise driving taxis.
I and the other members of the committee commit much time to its work and serving this island. Your readers will be able to see when the States members attendance details are next issued that the committee has held the second most frequent number of meetings during the last half-year of all departments and committees, Treasury and Resources Department being the most frequent. This does not indicate that the committee is shirking from its role and shows its full commitment to its work.
I hope that this letter answers the queries in your reader’s letter, but should the reader require more clarification, please come to me direct.
Deputy Leon Gallienne,
Public Accounts Committee chairman |
Matt Waterman
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2010 - 03:18 pm: | |
IF YOU’RE a fan of the States, look away now. Still reading? What a surprise.
The purest form of a democracy is to have a referendum on everything – in other words, everyone is effectively a deputy/MP. How practical that is depends almost entirely on the size of the population, but it cannot be denied that the smaller the proportion of a community that sits in government, the less of a democracy that government becomes. Put simply, it means more power in fewer hands.
I am surprised that the States has apparently decided to debate the way we vote at the election almost in isolation. It is so intertwined with the structure of government and related issues like deputies and civil-service numbers and pay levels that I fear we may end up with an electoral system that is incompatible with the type of government we have.
We need to be careful that suggestions that we pay our deputies more, led predictably enough by senior politicians, influential wealthy individuals and business leaders, does not lead to a reduction in the number of deputies to balance the books. Democracy is more valuable than that. You cannot put a price on it. Once you lose it, it’s very hard to win it back.
In any case, would it balance the books? If we cut the number of deputies to the extent being suggested by some, it would inevitably create more civil service jobs, probably with higher rates of remuneration, which may be filled by the culled deputies. Or more government services would be privatised. Either way, it would mean more power in unelected hands.
I agree that jobs carrying the levels of responsibility deputies undertake would be rewarded with greater salaries in the private sector, but candidates know that when they put themselves forward for election. The electorate knows it too. Voters see the candidates as being selfless and community minded enough to be making a sacrifice in terms of alternatives foregone. They do not expect successful candidate deputies to grab as much power as they can (either by moving to an executive government or by reducing their number) and say: ‘Look at the responsibility I’ve got – someone in my position deserves more money.’
Even our lowest paid deputies earn fractionally more than the average income, which, for anyone outside of the finance sector, is pretty good going.
Some deputies behave like little gods as it is. Giving them more money will inflate their egos. Look at how many overpaid Premiership players – not just those in the England team – have been much too big for their boots in South Africa (or worse still declined to even represent their country).
The point is, the more you are paid, the more likely you are to develop a mind-set of self-importance, your ego fed by the sycophantic hangers-on you attract.
Too often members of the House have dismissed public opinion with the attitude, ‘you elected us, shut up and let us get on with it’. Then they wonder why the public doesn’t engage with them.
They consult with people outside of the electorate during supposedly democratic exercises like Guernsey Tomorrow and island-wide voting. They increase the rich-poor divide. They refuse to disclose how they vote in the ministerial elections, then give the ministers more power. They pay lip service to calls for transparency and freedom of information. They appoint toothless in-house watchdogs to police themselves.
I fail to see how increasing deputies’ sense of self-importance by paying them more or reducing their number will do anything other than make this attitude worse.
It is suggested that increased salaries will attract a better quality of deputy. To me, anyone who stands for election because there is a good salary on offer isn’t community minded enough for government.
I mentioned in-house watchdogs. If you’re a fan of Leon Gallienne or his Public Accounts Committee, look even further away than before.
The PAC recently survived a no-confidence vote in the States. Deputies Trott and Gallienne said this should be regarded as the PAC having received a vote of confidence. Deputy Gallienne is often seen piloting a taxi. One can only conclude then that the PAC in which the States has confidence clearly hasn’t found too much amiss with public spending. All is peace and harmony.
Then enter the apple-cart-capsizing Deputy Parkinson, bemoaning the excessive spending of departments. When asked why the PAC hadn’t picked this up and apparently had time to drive taxis during the day, he offered two possibilities: 1) PAC is under resourced, and 2) some States members may take the view that their salaries are not a rate of remuneration for full-time work.
Surely if the PAC is under resourced, the resources should be straining every sinew to fulfil their purpose, not downing tools and driving taxis? And if they don’t regard their above-average-income deputies’ salaries as sufficient and have to make ends meet by taking a more lucrative job, they should have said so in their manifestos.
Maybe some deputies need reminding that our douzeniers work for nowt.
MATT WATERMAN. |
Peter Falla
Guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2010 - 10:33 am: | |
'BRING back conseillers, but call them senators.'
What an excellent letter on Friday 25 June from Elizabeth Langlois.
As she says: 'We had an excellent system of island-wide voting up to 2004, then the States went thoughtless.'
We had conseillers voted in island wide - perhaps we should have called them senators. Senator is easier to say than conseiller. I think this could be corrected by calling the 12 of the politicians voted in senators. It's easier on the tongue for many people as we have become a more cosmopolitan society.
A month or six weeks later, vote in your deputies parochially or by district - 32 or 33 of them and 10 douzaine representatives voted in annually in February by their douzaine. The douzaine is the nurturing ground for deputies.
PETER FALLA. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
