Friday, April 19, 2013







Let me run this little scenario past my readers. It is about "The Numbers Game". It is about "Head Counting" this is how the vast majority of legislation is passed in the states. It doesn't matter if the argument is lost on a proposition, it's solely about having enough members to pass it. The majority lies in the right wing, establishment, executive.

The reason I'm voting 'A' is that I want option 'A' to stand a chance in the debate that will follow the referendum. Option 'A' must win at the polls to stand a slight chance of being implemented. During the BBC Jersey Breakfast show this morning the most crucial part was when the presenter Mathew Price asked Senator Bailhache about what he thought was a reasonable number regarding voter turnout. Senator Bailhache refused to be drawn on this issue. He said "If a reasonable percentage of the island turnout for one or other of the options he is sure the states will implement it." Mathew Price asked him a number of times just what he thought was a reasonable number but the Senator refused to give one.  I thought Mathew Price should have been harder with Senator Bailhache on this point. He should have told him that his listeners deserved to know what the Chairman of the Electoral Commission thought was a reasonable number.

The reason that Senator Bailhache won't be drawn on this issue is simple. It is to do with the States of Jersey and the "Numbers Game."  The Senator is not worried if it is a 15% or 20% turnout. This is about getting option 'B' voted through the States if it wins on Wednesday. Now the likely hood of Option B winning is vastly higher than A. It is the country parishes that will decide it. We will  then believe that it will get rejected in the States because of a multiple of reasons: Low voter turnout, No option getting a clear majority, spoilt papers etc etc. This, I believe, is simply not the case.


How do they get Option B passed in the states even if it is a low turnout  and no clear majority?

You simply "Head Count"

You tell everyone how the public are sick to death of hearing about reform when there are so many other pressing issues concerning the Island. You say that the public have spoken and we must respect their wishes - even though there are some glaring issues concerning the result - and then you simply  "HEADCOUNT."

They need 27 Votes to get B through the States . Do they have them? I say yes.

This is my list:

I'm going for 11 Connétables - I'm giving Constable Crowcroft the benefit of the doubt on this one.

11 - Constables

Senator, Bailhache - Ozouf - Gorst - Routier 

Deputies, Power, Pinel, Noel, Bryons, Luce, Pryke, Baker, Moore, Le Bailley, Lewis, Green and Ryan.

Members will be under pressure to go with the result. The Constables give it a good kick start to the magic number of 27. 

This is just my opinion. 

The real fun will start if Option A wins at the polls. 

For this reason alone I'm giving Option 'A'  my vote. Having 42 States Members will be disastrous in my opinion. Feel free to have your own say on this.

The Battle is getting it passed in the States.

Time to start the "Headcount"

Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Journalist


Anonymous said...

The country parishes are the wealthy parishes by and large so it will be no surprise if they vote B to keep the Constables in.

Senator Bailhache does have a problem, and I think it is a serious one. He may have stood on a platform for change within the States, fair enough, it is needed, few would disagree.

The problem he has, is the complete lack of fairness, integrity and trying through the choice of questions to screw the result in his favour.

The population of Jersey are not stupid and can see the shambles he and his fellow politicians have served up, and it will definitely have a backlash, so in a nut shell, take the piss out of the public at your peril Senator Bailhache,

Mr A

Anonymous said...

The problem is that the 'states' do not have to even go with the referendum vote, it is not binding so it really doesn't matter what we vote, if it is not in the favour of the numbers, it will be overturned anyway, as usual the average person will not be heard

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't like to predict the result of next weeks referendum, but realistically the two "keep the constables" votes (B&C) could backfire on Bailhache and Co. For example the people who want to keep the constables in will vote B or C, lets say 30% vote for B and 30% vote for C....

This will leave 40% of the votes for A !?

Anonymous said...

Rico, I hope you don't mind me posting this comment on here. I have taken it from PlanetJersey. It's from a poster called Jerry Gosselin. He is so right.

Jerry Gosselin
Full Member

Posts: 249

Re: The Electoral Reform Commission

I watched CTV's reports over the last three nights that were designed to give viewers a better understanding of the three different referendum options. What alarmed me was the lack of any in-depth analysis of the problems that could result if either options A or B ever became a reality. Most obviously I am thinking of the implications of having an executive that would be in the majority if we only had 42 States Members (abandoning the 'Troy Rule').

The taped parts of the CTV reports were just parroting what the various campaign teams wanted the journalist to say and she duly obliged by obediently repeating their slick campaign slogans ("evolution not revolution" etc). That might have been forgiveable had she used the additional live studio part of her report to delve a bit deeper into the many negative consequences of these reforms, which could have been done in a balanced way by highlighting the bad points of all three options over successive nights. If she was that short of ideas she could have just cadged some ideas from Tony's Blog! Instead, the studio portion of the report completely failed to enlighten the audience any further. For instance, following the report on option B, almost a minute of valuable broadcasting time was devoted just to telling the viewers the names of the various high-ranking States Members who had declared their backing for option B. What on earth are we supposed to learn from this? Do people really need to know which personalities are backing which option before they decide how to vote? It really was dumbed-down journalism at its most basic.

Not that CTV is the only station that deserves criticism; I listened to a brief portion of an interview with Senator Le Marquand, representing option C, during Friday morning's BBC Radio Jersey Breakfast Show. At one point, Senator Le Marquand attempted to raise the issue of the Troy Rule only to find himself immediately interrupted by the presenter with the words "I'm glazing over..." - in other words, don't even bother starting a conversation on the Troy Rule because it's boring and the listeners won't be interested. What a disgrace that BBC man is. I switched off immediately.

The media has failed in its duty to ask tough questions about the consequences of these reforms and that is a major reason why next week's result simply cannot be taken seriously- because many of those who will vote will do so in relative ignorance of the possible consequences

voiceforchildren said...


The most important aspect of this whole hijacked mess is being air-brushed out of history. Daniel Wimberley's P.15/2011 which was accepted by the States asked for an "independent" Electoral Commission.

Philip Bailhache was able to hijack the commission by chairing it and putting two other politician's on the panel Constable Juliette Gallichan and son of a former Constable James Baker.

Philip Bailhache, in 2011, was promoting option B before it existed and lo and behold all three of the politicians support option B when it coincidentally turned up as an option!

The public are being taken for mugs, extremely ill informed by the State Media, and Daniel Wimberley must be thinking to himself "I told you this would happen."

What a complete, and skewed, mess Philip Bailhache has created and the State Media are doing a complete disservice to the public by air-brushing P15/2011 out of history.


Tom Gruchy said...

There is no need to panic about the number 42.
The available States members can be organised to do the job - if the Constables are fully employed in their Parishes undertaking many more tasks than they do now. The total workload needs to be properly distributed - we really should not fear this change.
Already the CM is adding duties (such as Finance) to his own portfolio, Housing is being abolished, Planning and Environment will probably soon follow, Bailhache is being fattened up to patrol the whole world, Economic Affairs is to be re-structed with Maclean given extra homework and there may be a Justice Department - if not Ministry - to take much of the Le Marquand work in hand....Look these are the existing likely reforms. There is no end to what MIGHT be done to "streamline" our central States government and we have no idea what is being planned at Government House and beyond...
We really must stop looking only at the obvious based upon the recent or distant past.
Of course the "establishment" have control NOW and they will ensure that the machine ticks according to their agenda but it need not always be so. Further reforms are always possible and challenges are possible - but we need to start with the Constables working effectively in their Parishes ONLY. Achieve that by voting for "A" and anything is possible - but of course it won't be easy and many more "Jersey Reform Days" will pass before it is resolved equitably...

Larry Rivers said...

The way I see it Bailhache has given us three options. All of which suit him and his broad political agenda of crushing a centre / left opposition.

If you vote for option A your supporting a systm that drives a coach and horses through the Troy Rule. This provides the COM with total control in the States with the support of Assistant Ministers.

If you vote for option B its even worse as you have the ultra conservative Constable block vote to reinforce the position. That option really does mean the end of opposition politics for the next 20years.

If you vote for option C then nothing changes and we have what we have now - a system whereby the Establishment can always outnumber the dissenters.

And to think he managed to pull it off right in front of everybody's eyes and not one single journalist has asked a pertnent question.

I'm NOT voting. And it pains me to admit that but the whole thing was rigged from the outset.

My hope is that the turn-out is so low that it has to get looked at again - but next time by an independent commission.

rico sorda said...

Hi Larry,

My sentiments exactly. Im having a minute by minute battle with myself about voting as I believe it legitimises what Bailhache has done to us. This could not have happened in the UK. A politician telling everyone that he was best place to head a commission into electoral reform. The media should have ripped this to bits for the utter garbage it is. Over the years we have become accustomed to accepting Sh*t we really have.

I have said it before. If you get served a rubbish plate of food do you just eat it or send it back for the chef to do better. Well the States said we can eat it no matter how rotten it is. That is the story of the States of Jersey. A not fit to govern circus.

I believe we will see new blood at the next election as I simply don't expect the likes of Ozouf, Mclean, Le Marquand, Le Gresley and one or two others to stand again.

What the Jersey landscape will be like in 18 months is anyones guess.

The Jersey Referendum has got to go down as the most complete load of rubbish ever served to the Jersey public by the States of Jersey.


Anonymous said...

Anon. at 11.03p.m,-

YES.....but.... the sting is this- the winner has to win by an absolute majority- i.e. over 50%+ then the 2nd votes (of the least popular option) are added to the 2 options that remain in the contest. This provides an overall winner. This could really back fire on Option A. I will explain it in a longer post later tonight or tomorrow.

rico sorda said...

Just like I predicted on this post 10 Constables have come out in favour of option B and 1 is undersided.

All States members who sat on the Electoral Commission have come out in favour of option B

Like I said this is a numbers game. They just have to get it passed in the states and they will.

At least this farce is well documented for anyone willing to challenge the result.


Anonymous said...

If the Constables are voted out and I hope they are, I wonder how many will resign, as they can,t afford to live without the states pay?

Anonymous said...

Ok, so maybe
Ozouf, Mclean, Le Marquand, Le Gresley will call it a day by the time of the next election. But how will Sir Philip Bailache survive with the new breed?!

Anonymous said...

If Option A,B or C wins,then Bailache gets his way.How they got away with offering these 3 rigged options shows that the commission certainly wasn,t independent.I don't know why people feel that they should choose one of these options.I shall be going to vote and deliberately spoiling my paper therefore showing I have made the effort and don't want anything to do with this establishment power shit.I think the more votes spoilt the better.The're lucky we are all law abiding citizens,in many countries there'd be protests and riots by now.

Anonymous said...

At the forthcoming hijacked referendum PLEASE use BOTH votes.

A #1 ......... AND ........ C #2

Voting C as 2nd choice is NOT a vote against A because your 2nd vote does not count unless your first choice is knocked out in the first count,

Your 2nd choice vote ONLY counts if your first is knocked out ...... USE IT !

Do you want B to win because you didn't use your backup vote?

The current system (i.e. "C") is bad and undemocratic but least it is not "B", which is designed for Bellyaches 1000 year Jersey Right (or is it Reich ?)

Even the C campaign says change is necessary but not this [hijacked] change.

Voting C and A will also lead to change but probably not for another decade
So .... Please vote ...... A ......... AND ........ C

“A” can be easily made acceptable just by not reducing the house - more Deputies or keep the Senators
A reduced house may lead to a bigger civil service.

voiceforchildren said...


Further to my previous comment. The State Media has been doing the public a disservice in misleading them as to what this hijacked referendum is all about.

The "party line" is pro-anti Constable, with the State Media asking "do you want your Constable to remain in the States?" Voters are then led to believe that only options A and B give that option.

This is NOT a pro-anti Constable referendum. Option A simply asks that the Constables face a "fair election."

The discredited, and disgraced, BBC has been keeping the public ignorant when it comes to the "wisdom" of the Constables for quite some time.

The "wisdom" of the Constables can be viewed HERE

voiceforchildren said...


A message from P. BALLACHE