August 6th 2008
While the introduction of election expenses caps to finally prevent the effective buying of seats in the States by wealthy candidates are to be welcomed as long overdue, the public should be under no delusion that in its present form this legislation from PPC will do anything of the sort. The result of PPC’s three years of labour still has more holes open to abuse by those possessing significant wealth than an old string vest. It is true that at the time of writing we still await the appearance of a now hurriedly promised ‘guide’ to how the unworkable will work. Nevertheless I believe the major underlying concern for any who wish to see transparency, fairness and accountability in government should be the evidence that those establishment figures holding the reins of political power and influence want nothing of the sort. Indeed, the thought of more working class peasants high on both ability and ethics but low on capital getting into government fills them with terror.
Should any reader doubt this fact then as a starting place I suggest the following. Leave aside for now the much-trumpeted “£8.000 Senatorial cap” that will in reality presently allow anyone fortunate enough to have a half-dozen wealthy chums happy to chuck in another £4.000 a shot to promote them – strictly unbeknown to the candidate or each other, of course – do exactly that. Look instead to another piece of fabulous establishment spin regarding new regulations to apparently allow and encourage those employed by the States to offer themselves up for election. As a professional employed by Education, Sport & Culture I can tell you first hand that despite the taxpayer’s money spent by the council’s Communications Unit to con the public otherwise, unlike the famous advert this does exactly the opposite to what it says on the tin. This is merely yet another ploy to ensure the challenge to those who run our island as a private benefits club – just look at the 6% effective tax rate for 1.1(K)s - for our wealthy elite remain as limited as possible. But let me explain.
In the 21st century most of us, even we States employees, have an annual leave entitlement. What we choose to do with those holidays are surely for us as individuals to decide. Whether this should be lying on a beach, painting the house or simply spending a few weeks worrying about GST or if we will still be working aged 70+ to try and pay the mortgage. If someone should alternatively want to offer themselves up for election then use of an annual leave entitlement should also be quite acceptable: a person would, after all, be removed from their place of employment throughout the election. This would also allow a whole new vein of potentially highly capable working people to offer themselves up to serve the electorate – winners all round. But not if our Human Resources mandarins and their ministerial puppet masters have their way.
As one such professional considering standing for election I initially had the sensible and sympathetic agreement from Staff Services to do just the above. What is now actually being imposed – and please remember the “level election playing field” spin here – is enforced unpaid leave for the entire duration of the election, whether this be for Senator, Deputy or Constable. No commonsense uses of annual leave entitlement or even owed T.O.I.L. The reason for all this according to the council of ministers? Because government “can’t have individuals campaigning for election whilst on the payroll” Well, unless you happen to be a States Member that is. Oddly enough an employee can use the above to go out and campaign for a multi-millionaire minister happily drawing his salary from the same public purse. Even…campaign for another States employee. But not for your own campaign. No, that would be plain ridiculous, wouldn’t it.
Well thought out on the transparency and fairness fronts? I think the Communications Unit might struggle on selling this one even with another three hundred thousand pounds or so of the public’s money to squander. So there you have it, a “level election playing field” for the States employee. Cancel this year’s holiday, talk your eldest out of university, take out a bank loan to fund a modest election campaign – then think about how you are going to pay the mortgage, live and feed the family with zero income. A starting point of minus £2-£3000+ and all cosy in the knowledge that those nice multi-millionaire council of ministers up for re-election will still be able to draw their much needed salaries to support their own campaigns. Well, some people are just better, aren’t they? You know, more equal than others.
Fair? No. That is why having taken legal advice from lawyers this week I am now in the process of attempting to mount a legal challenge. No. I haven’t got the money. No. It certainly shouldn’t be this way – not if we are serious about Jersey being an “equal” society. But maybe, as somebody said to me," that is the whole point for the bunch of bloated, arrogant, not to mention decidedly incompetent and ignorant halfwits who style themselves the island’s “senior” politicians. It is difficult not to agree.Most working people won’t challenge such injustices because they simply can’t afford to, either financially or in terms of concern about repercussions from employers. But that is also why I feel I have to pursue this.
The opportunity to put ourselves forward to serve the island in government should be open to all, not just those with a suitably thick bank account, or the connections to exploit the system But don’t expect to hear much about it in the media.
While the introduction of election expenses caps to finally prevent the effective buying of seats in the States by wealthy candidates are to be welcomed as long overdue, the public should be under no delusion that in its present form this legislation from PPC will do anything of the sort. The result of PPC’s three years of labour still has more holes open to abuse by those possessing significant wealth than an old string vest. It is true that at the time of writing we still await the appearance of a now hurriedly promised ‘guide’ to how the unworkable will work. Nevertheless I believe the major underlying concern for any who wish to see transparency, fairness and accountability in government should be the evidence that those establishment figures holding the reins of political power and influence want nothing of the sort. Indeed, the thought of more working class peasants high on both ability and ethics but low on capital getting into government fills them with terror.
Should any reader doubt this fact then as a starting place I suggest the following. Leave aside for now the much-trumpeted “£8.000 Senatorial cap” that will in reality presently allow anyone fortunate enough to have a half-dozen wealthy chums happy to chuck in another £4.000 a shot to promote them – strictly unbeknown to the candidate or each other, of course – do exactly that. Look instead to another piece of fabulous establishment spin regarding new regulations to apparently allow and encourage those employed by the States to offer themselves up for election. As a professional employed by Education, Sport & Culture I can tell you first hand that despite the taxpayer’s money spent by the council’s Communications Unit to con the public otherwise, unlike the famous advert this does exactly the opposite to what it says on the tin. This is merely yet another ploy to ensure the challenge to those who run our island as a private benefits club – just look at the 6% effective tax rate for 1.1(K)s - for our wealthy elite remain as limited as possible. But let me explain.
In the 21st century most of us, even we States employees, have an annual leave entitlement. What we choose to do with those holidays are surely for us as individuals to decide. Whether this should be lying on a beach, painting the house or simply spending a few weeks worrying about GST or if we will still be working aged 70+ to try and pay the mortgage. If someone should alternatively want to offer themselves up for election then use of an annual leave entitlement should also be quite acceptable: a person would, after all, be removed from their place of employment throughout the election. This would also allow a whole new vein of potentially highly capable working people to offer themselves up to serve the electorate – winners all round. But not if our Human Resources mandarins and their ministerial puppet masters have their way.
As one such professional considering standing for election I initially had the sensible and sympathetic agreement from Staff Services to do just the above. What is now actually being imposed – and please remember the “level election playing field” spin here – is enforced unpaid leave for the entire duration of the election, whether this be for Senator, Deputy or Constable. No commonsense uses of annual leave entitlement or even owed T.O.I.L. The reason for all this according to the council of ministers? Because government “can’t have individuals campaigning for election whilst on the payroll” Well, unless you happen to be a States Member that is. Oddly enough an employee can use the above to go out and campaign for a multi-millionaire minister happily drawing his salary from the same public purse. Even…campaign for another States employee. But not for your own campaign. No, that would be plain ridiculous, wouldn’t it.
Well thought out on the transparency and fairness fronts? I think the Communications Unit might struggle on selling this one even with another three hundred thousand pounds or so of the public’s money to squander. So there you have it, a “level election playing field” for the States employee. Cancel this year’s holiday, talk your eldest out of university, take out a bank loan to fund a modest election campaign – then think about how you are going to pay the mortgage, live and feed the family with zero income. A starting point of minus £2-£3000+ and all cosy in the knowledge that those nice multi-millionaire council of ministers up for re-election will still be able to draw their much needed salaries to support their own campaigns. Well, some people are just better, aren’t they? You know, more equal than others.
Fair? No. That is why having taken legal advice from lawyers this week I am now in the process of attempting to mount a legal challenge. No. I haven’t got the money. No. It certainly shouldn’t be this way – not if we are serious about Jersey being an “equal” society. But maybe, as somebody said to me," that is the whole point for the bunch of bloated, arrogant, not to mention decidedly incompetent and ignorant halfwits who style themselves the island’s “senior” politicians. It is difficult not to agree.Most working people won’t challenge such injustices because they simply can’t afford to, either financially or in terms of concern about repercussions from employers. But that is also why I feel I have to pursue this.
The opportunity to put ourselves forward to serve the island in government should be open to all, not just those with a suitably thick bank account, or the connections to exploit the system But don’t expect to hear much about it in the media.
No comments:
Post a Comment