States oil tanker lying idle

I dont know, I will try and find out.

Thanks Dave

Dave, Thanks for the update. The States are poor on communication and if the facts had been communicated before and afterwards in an open manner, conspiracy theories etc would be laid to rest. I think the states could improve their communication in many areas.
I still think that the decision to buy was a sound one.

Hear hear plimmerton....

I agree that the States per se need to improve their lines of communication to keep the public better informed. Some individual Deputies are quite good, others are not heard of, except at election time!!

I think that it is time to change to Island-wide elections, as opposed to Parish elections, as Deputies do not have just a remit to their Parish, rather it is Bailiwick-wide now and the process needs to address that. Time for change IMO........



.

I have asked this question before but nobody seemed able to answer it. Let's try again.

In what way exactly would Island wide voting be more beneficial than Parish voting ?

I cannot speak for anybody else but from my point of view! At the last election there were several candidates I wished to vote for - but as they were not in my parish I couldn't! However, two people whom I did not wish/not did I vote for but who live in my parish are now Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister- three out of the five I wanted to vote for outside of my parish failed to get in - my vote could have swayed the result......maybe - maybe not - but I will never know!!

kingcolemk
Our elected People's Deputies make decisions that effect the lives of every man, woman and child in the Bailiwick, yet at present the electorate can only vote to elect or remove a handful of deputies who happen to stand in the parish where the voter resides.
It should also be remembered that a candidate is not required to live in the parish in which he or she chooses to stand and can change parishes as and when they see fit. This is an option that is denied the voter. More importantly once elected the politician, should they choose, can ignore the concerns of the rest of the island electorate. They need only take heed of the wishes of the voters in their own particular parish, secure in the knowledge that these are the only voters who will have the power to remove them at the next election.
This situation at present leaves all the members of the House free to inflict unwelcome and unsympathetic development in any parish of their choosing, fully aware that the views of the residents of that parish will be of little consequence. Their vote cannot damage the chances of the people who made that decision outside the parish or electoral district in question.
This was offset to some degree in times past by the strong representations of the Douzaines, whose views were listened to and respected by the States of Deliberation. As we have see in recent times, this is sadly no longer the case. This is the main reason the parish system of election no longer delivers the electorate's wishes. It has been a victim of the problems affecting the island as a whole, not just parish issues. The government frequently ignores the wishes of the parish Douzaines, not least when parish decisions come into conflict with those of 'Central Government'. On occasion, it has even seen fit to overturn decisions made by parish officials when it suits their purpose. Public representations to parish officials have also now become a meaningless farce, as the public is acutely aware that their views will only be considered by the States as a whole providing those views support States thinking. Given that position, is it any wonder that people who are forced by the system to vote on Parish lines, desert the ballot box when the views of the Parish are constantly ignores by States Members the voter had no hand in electing? This same Parish system gives the voter very little real choice of candidate on polling day, this invariably leads to the voter electing the candidates they dislike least, rather than selecting those they like the most. Finding themselves in this situation the only other option open to those disaffected voters, unable to find a suitable candidate in their Parish, is not to vote at all. An option more and more people are adopting. This can often lead to people no longer wishing to register on the electoral roll and in many cases, never returning to vote again. It is just as important, for the electorate of the island to be able to remove politicians, as it is to put them in office in the first place. The notion that this is what happens at present is incorrect. Parish elections continually return candidates with a strong local following, resulting from church, extended family influence and parish patronage on key issues within the parish, or whatever. Members can and do, frequently gain seats with a handful of votes and often gain powerful and influential positions in government, despite an ever-diminishing mandate from the people. Harwood has suggested that the island needs 'strong' candidates who command wide support both inside and outside the chamber. What member of the States would wish to argue with that statement?

Members elected into office on an 'Island Wide' mandate would clearly have demonstrated that they had that support, before taking up their seats in government. They would equally be aware that those very same voters could just as easily remove them should the wishes of the people be consistently ignored. One of the most frequent charges laid against States Members is that "politicians do not listen to public opinion". It has also been claimed that 'too much' democracy makes it hard for politicians to make difficult or unpopular decisions that all governments need to make from time to time. This is in my view insulting and patronising to the people of Guernsey. If the public has freely chosen all their representatives and voted them into government, providing politicians inform, consult and listen to the electorate properly, implementing just and reasonable policies, the people will give such a government their support. What is abundantly clear at the moment is the States Members cannot lay claim to that support. The island has become a very unpleasant place for some in our community. A place of poverty and despair for many, a place many local people no longer feel a part of. It has also been said that government has become far too willing to pander to powerful sectional interests, this is to the detriment of many who simply want to be represented as island residents. Our government should be creating a climate that gives all of our community an affordable lifestyle for themselves and their children. The people should not be treated as a commodity that is only required to put a 'cross' on a ballot paper every four years in order for that 'cross' to bring them more of the same. There are many islanders who believe that States Members have turned their backs on them altogether, they in turn no longer wish to be involved in the electoral process. Without the people turning up at the polling stations, any review of government is pointless. People need to feel that their vote matters, when they see that it doesn't they find other things to do on Election Day.

Electoral Districts

The electoral districts proposed by Harwood are in reality simply bigger 'parishes'. While five electoral districts is infinitely preferable to the existing ten, the defects in the latter arrangement are still inherent in the revised system. Those defects come sharply into focus given the following scenario. As I have already said, with the electoral system we have at present, if the voters preferred candidates are standing for election in some parish/district other than his own, the voter is denied the opportunity to vote for them. They are only able to vote for one or other of those standing in the elector's home parish whether they find them acceptable or not.
This situation will not change under the proposed revised electoral arrangements. It is a primary defect that no amount of 'tinkering' will remedy. Furthermore, the Review Panel considered the situation whereby a voter in one of the smaller parishes is frequently being denied a vote where their single candidate is unopposed as wholly unacceptable. Yet the very same situation will almost certainly occur under the proposed changes. What happens when the number of seats available in one of the proposed new electoral districts attracts only sufficient candidates to fill the exact number of seats? Consequently no vote will take place.
The difference here is that not just 700 odd voters take no part in the election as has happened in the single seat parishes in the past, upwards of 6500 voters would take no part in the election should there be only enough candidates to fill the vacant seats. It is possible that the candidates would, under these circumstances, take up a seat in government by default and the island's electorate, as a whole could not remove them.

As the parishioners did not elect them either, whom would these people purport to represent? This is what I meant when I said that it could bring our system of election close to collapse. I ask if this is a real improvement on what happens now and who among you will be willing to explain to 6500 angry islanders why they had no vote.
The situation would be little different if you had six candidates for five seat, although it is true that you would have an election, the bulk of the candidates from that electoral district would be in office mainly through lack of choice, not by electoral consent, that is not an election…it's a lottery.
One question therefore must be: 'what is to be gained by moving to a system based on (larger) electoral districts, given that that new method shares the same shortcomings of the existing system?' States Members would do well to consider the possible implications of candidates gaining a seat by default. This could easily result in a totally unsuitable candidate taking a seat in the island's government. A person who, I would suggest, would never have stood a chance under an Island wide electoral process. In closing I would like to remind members that the central theme of Harwood is to move to a more effective and accountable administration. There can be no more certain way of making it accountable than making all our politicians answerable to all the people. It has been claimed that Island wide voting would throw up the populist candidates who might not be the most suitable politician, when in government.
The point to remember is that while the public might choose the members who make up the States, it is the House who chooses those who will be the leaders (Presidents or Ministers). ˜ What better system is there than one which allows the House to choose the best member from among those whom the public have given the widest possible mandate?
Harwood was all about bringing the government of Guernsey into the twenty first century. Are we to continue to saddle it with an electoral system that we inherited from the nineteenth? It says much about the present electoral system, when you consider that the means of identifying the voter's choice is to make the sign of a cross on the ballot sheet. A cross was all that most people could manage in an age when illiteracy was common place. This is a measure of how far out of date our system of election has become. Modern elections throughout the world are carried out using electronic voting, postal votes, and touch screen computers. Any modern democracy, even one as small as ours, can have whatever type of election they desire. There are respected organisations that will provide all the necessary equipment and hardware to run a 'modern' election in this island, all we have to do is have the will to do it and to put the law in place to make it happen. I bet you are glad you asked now

Dave Jones

Thanks for that Dave, it certainly addresses some of the points that I was unsure of before.

It makes me even more certain that it is time that we introduced Island-wide voting. Also, totally agree with the 'modern' way of running an election as opposed to the 'nineteenth century' version currently utilised. Let us embrace technology and change, it is time we entered the twenty first century with these matters IMO.....




.

Dave, an interesting read. I would go for Island wide voting. Some of the problems you mention like a popular person getting in is a risk in Parish and Island wide voting, in fact it is probably more of a problem in Parish votes.
I do not necessarily agree with "The point to remember is that while the public might choose the members who make up the States, it is the House who chooses those who will be the leaders (Presidents or Ministers). ˜ What better system is there than one which allows the House to choose the best member from among those whom the public have given the widest possible mandate?"
My reasoning being that politics can mean that members will align with the best talker to head a position so they (the voting member) can get a plum position, mainly self serving as opposed to serving the public/Island. I would use the existing Chief Minister as an example as a man who has not really been the best and most popular selection getting to the top position. So I would question if the system for choosing the leader is the right one, but I do not have an alternative unless it is the most votes from the public gets the top position, but even that is not a sure fire way of selecting the top dog.

David, thanks for taking the time to make such an in depth explaination of your view on the subject. I would imagine that that has clarified the issue for most Guerns as well as myself.

But may I turn this around to the opposite viewpoint. Under such a system as you advocate, how do you protect the interest of people at the local Parish level. Surely you would need to have a stronger parish council structure headed by rhe Douzines, with power to deal with all the minor local issues independantly of the States.

The situation with the Cobo carpark is a good example of how local issues are ignored and disowned by the centralized States, and local officials slapped down when they try to resolve issues.

Beware the Big Brother syndrome.

Dave should not the Lt Governor be fighting our corner in the Uk - if not what is his purpose for being on the island in a house that's upkeep must be astronimical?

karma wrote:....just a matter of interest - what is the price per annum to the island of insuring these tankers???

Did you ever find out the answer to my question...........................