Internet Journalism, New Media, and Political Reporting

Challenging the Mainstream Media’s Self-Assumed Monopoly

Clameur de Haro's fellow-blogger Jersey 24/7 commented recently on the threat which the traditional press feels is posed generally by the growth in internet journalism, and particularly, the blogosphere: and J-24/7 quite correctly links this to the concerns of Jersey’s political bloggers that the local “accredited” press are trying to stifle the development of the medium.

As political bloggers we have a great opportunity to put our collective case across at the moment, because after the recent kerfuffle about rights of access for the reporting (and in particular, the filming) of Scrutiny hearings, the Media Working Party set up under the chairmanship of Senator Ben Shenton has issued a call for evidence (“Publicising the States and Scrutiny”). In particular it asks -

Do you have an opinion on the use of blog sites?

Who do you believe to be ‘the media’?

and its terms of reference require it, after considering “…..the distinction, if any, between ‘bloggers’ and the ‘official’ press…”, to come to a definition of “the media”.

Clameur de Haro’s view is that no coherent definition of the media in 2010 can possibly exclude the political blogosphere: and that regular local political bloggers have just as much right as the MSM to attend and report events like Scrutiny hearings, should receive formal press accreditation to do so, and should be included in the definition of “the media”.

There’s very little doubt that the MSM in general and the Dead Tree Press in particular see the growth of the local political blogosphere as an unwelcome development at best and a threat at worst, and would like to negate it or marginalise it so as to protect its near-monopoly of political reporting and comment. The Jersey Evening [sic] Post kicked off its campaign of objection - in what it presumably thought was a subtle way - with Christine Herbert’s op-ed piece in last Saturday’s edition (still not posted online yet, incidentally – now there’s web-savvy for you….).

Writing about blogs, Ms Herbert professed herself to be “….a firm believer in the freedom of speech – and in the freedom of information” – but here comes the qualification “…when it is fair and in the public interest”. That’s exactly the point, Ms Herbert, which you signally didn’t go on to address. Before the development of internet journalism, it was the MSM which exclusively determined what was “fair” or “in the public interest” and either allowed or denied the public access to it: the MSM no longer has that monopoly, and like all monopolists whose position is challenged, it doesn’t like it.

She went on to say “Sadly, blogs in general are often little more than a licence to bully and victimise without fear of retribution”. In some cases that’s correct, but as Mr David Rotherham pointed out in a splendid riposte a couple of days later (curiously, also not viewable online), many concern themselves with the same kind of issues and material as the Dead Tree Press (sometimes rather more analytically), and no-one is forced to read a bad blog among the many alternatives available.

Ms Herbert continued “The information contained on the internet is often untruthful and lacks the kind of rigour and responsibility that more formal forms of communication have been subject to for many years”. Well, that’s sometimes true – but just a few lines above her blogging-related comments, when talking about the finance industry’s marketing initiatives in the Middle East, Ms Herbert referred overwhelmingly to Dubai, and used the phrase “families who had made their money from the liquid gold known as oil”. CdeH hopes that she has by now had it pointed out to her that Dubai has virtually no oil of its own, and that most of the UAE’s oil reserves are those of Abu Dhabi – as most bloggers of CdeH’s acquaintance well know. Not an especially momentous error, perhaps, and it doesn’t destroy the sense of the piece, but it shows that lack of journalistic rigour isn’t by any means exclusive to specifically internet journalism.

But the JEP isn’t alone: dislike of the accelerating development of new political media runs across most of the MSM, which increasingly floats reasons of public propriety as an unconvincing camouflage for its innate protectionism.

Mr Peter Wilby, the former editor of the New Statesman, referring to MEP Daniel Hannan’s monstering of Gordon Brown in the European Parliament which became such a hit on YouTube, is on record as saying “The online success of Daniel Hannan’s speech…………proves what we knew: the internet lacks quality control”. Echoes of Ms Christine Herbert there, methinks.

To quote Daniel Hannan (and with a large H/T to J-24/7 for directing CdeH to it) in reply -

“Yup. That’s the thing about the internet: it turns the quality filters off. Until very recently, few of us could get political news direct from source. It had to be interpreted for us by a BBC man with a microphone or a newspaper’s political correspondent. Now, though, people can make their own minds up. The message has been disintermediated. What Mr Wilby seems to mean when he complains that the internet “lacks quality control” is not that my speech was ungrammatical or shoddily constructed, but that its content was disagreeable. The quality filters he evidently has in mind would screen out points of view that he considers unacceptable”.

Or to quote Douglas Carswell MP -

“….the web should put a smile on our face – it provided the means to change. The web will do to the princely quangocrats and the priesthood of professional politicians who preside over us what the printing press did to their forebears. It’ll smash concentrations of power in our political system – just as it’s doing in retail and the media. Barriers to entry in politics will go. Clear distinctions between amateur and professional will blur. A few years ago, (Polly) Toynbee and co formed an unchallenged aristocracy of commentators. Today, often to their consternation, they have to keep up with the likes of Guido Fawkes and a democratised commentariat.”

Messrs Hannan and Carswell express the MSM’s (and the JEP’s) fears in a nutshell, Clameur de Haro suspects. The fundamental point – and benefit - of internet journalism is precisely, as Mr Hannan puts it, that it does disintermediate the message: so that the MSM is no longer the only interpreter, the only route and the only filter through which the public has to accept its news and comment without an alternative source.

So the genie is well and truly out of the bottle, and the game and its rules have irrevocably changed. And we’re starting to see instances of governments and organisations admitting this fact, recognising that the definition of “the media” has broken open and widened for all time, accepting that it’s better to acknowledge and provide for this rather than try and ignore it or thwart it, and changing their media practices to acknowledge the role and reach of the new, “social” media.

As recently as 16 November, for example, the UK announced a review of the government briefing / parliamentary lobby system to end the predominance of Dead Tree Press journalists in the lobby and accommodate in future all forms of new media in briefings about government and parliamentary business. And on 07 December, NATO held its first ever briefing for political bloggers, inviting several authors from the UK political blogosphere to NATO HQ in Brussels for a day-long briefing with senior personnel, mostly about Afghanistan.

Jersey’s government needs to make sure that it’s not left behind the curve on this subject, by resisting the likely blandishments and objections from the MSM and embracing both the distribution and reporting possibilities that Jersey’s new media and its practitioners open up.

Admitting local political bloggers to the hitherto closely-guarded and jealously-protected ranks of the accredited media is vital to increased transparency (which politicians are fond of talking about), because it enables the message to be taken directly to the electorate without it being subject to the necessarily one-dimensional filter of the monopoly MSM’s interpretation of it. CdeH suspects, for example, that two or three local bloggers, irrespective of their individual political leanings, might well make a considerably better fist of reporting Scrutiny hearings and the like than JEP reporters subjected to firstly, space constraints imposed by the need to sell advertising space and secondly the whims and prejudices of the sub-editor.

So Clameur de Haro is inclined to spend a little time during those dog days between Christmas and New Year preparing a submission to the Media Working Party arguing strongly for the local blogosphere to be regarded unequivocally as an integral part of the media and accredited as such, with all the privileges – and responsibilities – of access which that entails. Comments, ideas, and contributions from fellow-bloggers welcome.

Add to del.icio.usDigg It!Stumble This

Stuart Syvret – A Sick Joke

So, observes, Clameur de Haro, t’would seem that Fugitivus Laxativus Diminutivus, aka Stuart Syvret, phoned in to School last week claiming that he has a sick note from Matron, and needs to be excused from games.

Such is Mr Syvret’s (totally misplaced) opinion of his own pre-eminent intellectual brilliance, and such his contrasting opinion of the congenital stupidity of virtually everyone else, that he probably genuinely assumes that no-one at all is astute enough to spot this ploy for what it presumably is – an attempt to avoid suspension on the grounds of his continued absence from Assembly proceedings and the consequential discontinuation of his eligibility to receive remuneration.

Perhaps his erstwhile host and like-minded oddball Mr John Hemmjng needs to buy more vegetable oil to power his car, and is demanding some contribution to offset his continuing hospitality.

Those who seek to support Mr Syvret in this enterprise do us, and indeed themselves, no favours whatsoever. In the light of recent revelations and judicial opinions, plenty of people would say that Fugitivus Laxativus Diminutivus is indisputably sick – although not, perhaps, in any medical sense.

Long may he find a return incompatible with his health [sic]. Long may he continue to benefit our polity by his non-participation in it – lock, stock, and delicate medical condition.

Add to del.icio.usDigg It!Stumble This

Wimberley Runs Up The Red Flag

Clameur de Haro was not remotely surprised to see the traditional banner of redistributive tax-and-spend socialism unequivocally hoisted to the Daniel Wimberley masthead this week. In his letter on Tuesday to the Jersey Evening [sic] Post about the Angry Men, Mr Wimberley rehearsed all the predictable mantras associated with the philosophy.

We had, most notably, the attempted excoriation of what he terms as the low-tax, low-spend ideology implemented over the past three decades, and which according to him must be resisted. Apart from providing an explicit statement of his predatory stance on public sector finances, it is also less than accurate.

Does Mr Wimberley really believe that we have had a low-spend government? If only we had been so blessed - we might not be in the position that we now are. The problems we face at present are in very great measure due to the runaway, uncontrolled public spending and public sector growth that we have seen in the last ten years, and the inability or unwillingness of most politicians to tackle it.

He then follows the usual scare tactics of the political left by implying that the Angry Men favour curtailing public expenditure by abandoning respite care for the disabled, the Town Park, and the problems of Bellozanne, and essential infrastructure maintenance. But nowhere in Mr Trower’s conversation with the JEP’s Ben Queree is any of this even hinted at.

What Mr Trower and his colleagues quite rightly protest against is the sheer size, reach, dubious utility and uncontrolled expense of much of the bureaucratic empire, allied to inadequate financial and budgetary discipline – and the inclination to tax in order to fund it, rather than address the underlying problem. Remember the contract for the incinerator, Mr Wimberley? Advocates of a smaller, leaner, less activist but more efficient government have been saying for years that the public sector does too much that is unnecessary, and does it at far greater cost than necessary.

Mr Wimberley appears to recoil in horror that States’ departments were forced to make efficiency savings in order to limit the necessity for taxation increases. Obviously he adheres to the collectivist assumption that public spending is somehow a good in itself, and finds the notion that individuals should be able to retain more of their own money as heresy.

He needs to be reminded that the state, and the public sector, has no resources of its own other than what it confiscates from individuals and firms by way of taxation. As Ludwig Von Mises put it -

“At the bottom of the interventionist argument there is always the idea that the government or the state is an entity outside and above the social process of production - that it owns something which is not derived from taxing its subjects - and that it can spend this mythical something for definite purposes.

This is the Santa Claus fable raised by Keynes to the dignity of an economic doctrine and enthusiastically endorsed by all those who expect personal advantage from government spending.

As against these popular fallacies there is need to emphasize the truism that a government can spend or invest only what it takes away from its citizens - and that its additional spending and investment curtails the citizens’ spending and investment to the full extent of its quantity.”

Add to del.icio.usDigg It!Stumble This

Stuart Syvret Loses The Plot

Clameur de Haro has just been watching the extended Channel TV interview with Fugitivus Laxativus Diminutivus, courageously upholding his fight for Truth and Justice (yawn) in the Big Smoke.

Most of the local media are, understandably, focussing on the Persecuted One himself, so let’s shine a brief light on his current host, the LibDem MP for Birmingham Yardley, John Hemming.

Hemming is, to put it mildly, something of a serial oddball, noted more than anything else for the number and frequency of his extra-marital dalliances (his wife puts the number of such instances at 26), and for being memorably described by The Times as “an eccentric who left colleagues aghast” when he modestly put himself forward for the LibDem leadership early in 2006. Among his other accomplishments [sic] are being a founder-member of the Phoenix consortium which pulled the wool over the government’s eyes over the purchase of Rover Cars for £10 and then made a hash of running it, and being described in the Birmingham electoral fraud case as a “dreadful witness”, possessed of “an inability to give a straight answer to a straight question”, and whose evidence was “largely inadmissible hearsay”.

All of which probably goes a long way to explaining why he is the refuge-provider of choice for our own home-grown serial oddball.

However, Hemming has been astute enough to trouser about £394,000 from the UK taxpayer in MPs expenses over the past three years, including designating his flat in Covent Garden as his second home, charging £80 for a hotel “when locked out of flat (lost keys)”, charging £681 for bedding, and trying to charge £1,499 for a television. So Fugitivus Laxativus Diminutivus has some way to go yet in learning how to live off the state while doing not very much.

Syvret has comprehensively lost the plot. Pressed several times by the CTV interviewer as to why he continued to draw his States Member’s salary while absenting himself, Fugitivus Laxativus Diminutivus maintained that he is doing “important political work” on behalf of his constituents. Well, although CdeH would never vote for Syvret in a thousand years, he is, he supposes, one of the Persecuted One’s constituents, so it needs to be stated clearly and unequivocally “Not on my behalf, you aren’t”. And judging from the vox-pops and comments on media websites, most people agree.

Fugitivus Laxativus Diminutivus professes, and clearly still believes, that he was ousted for making claims about excessive punishments at a childrens’ institution and institutionalised corruption. He cannot accept that he was, quite simply, voted from ministerial office, by a majority of the Island’s democratically elected legislature, in open debate, because of his manifest refusal (or, in the opinion of a very great number of residents, because of his congenital inability) to conduct himself in ministerial office, or indeed any public office, with the remotest degree of civility and balance.

He is a man who labels democratically-reached decisions as “disastrous and incompetent” because they do not accord with his own views; a man who considers as evil and enemies those who are merely opponents; a man who insists that political setbacks must be by definition the result of “right-wing” or “establishment” conspiracies; a man who assumes the inevitable synchronicity of his own views with the (presumed by him) will of the people; and a man who embraces gesture politics in preference to mature, civilised, reasoned debate.

The self-delusion about self-protective exile and the claim for political asylum are risible. Long may he stay away from our shores: and continuance of his member’s salary may in fact be a small price to pay for the benefits to the Island’s polity of his non-participation in it. Clameur de Haro occasionally takes issue with the content of Jersey Evening Post [sic] editorials, but credit where credit’s due - Chris Bright’s recent “..not much point going into hiding if nobody is actually looking for you” was masterful.

Endnote: Hemming also takes pride on having converted his car to run on vegetable oil. He’s been refused permission to store all the vegetable oil in the precincts of Parliament, so now apparently, cans of the stuff are required to travel around with him. If I were you, Stuart, I’d keep well away from the chopping board and the kitchen mixer when stocks are running low………

Add to del.icio.usDigg It!Stumble This

A Nasty Little Inference In Chris Bright’s JEP Editorial

Clameur de Haro found it disturbing to see yesterday’s JEP editorial borrow an ugly argumental tactic straight out of cultural marxism’s handbook of debating methods: and hopes that it will indeed be merely borrowed – temporarily - and not become a regular feature.

Writing about the proposition on civil partnerships which was piloted, sensitively in the opinion of CdeH, through the States today by Senator Philip Ozouf, Chris Bright said much that is accurate about the need to eliminate unfair discrimination towards homosexual couples. But Mr Bright also said the following –

“….it is generally true that this proposal will not find favour with all Islanders. Like it or not, homophobic prejudice remains far from uncommon in our society……"

Thus did Mr Bright seek to insinuate that no objection to the proposal could possibly originate from anything other than homophobic prejudice – an accusation which he will, if he follows the logic of his own argument, presumably now be laying, rapidly and publicly, at the door of Senator Ian Le Marquand.

Clameur de Haro blogged recently about this typical tactic of the cultural left: it is known as “closing down the argument”, and is much used to circumvent debate and choke off the expression of a legitimate contrary view at source. My opponent, it seeks to imply, is by definition so unspeakably vile / prejudiced / homophobic / racist / whatever, that his views cannot possibly be accorded a hearing, never mind taken seriously. We see it in one of its most virulent forms in the equating of anthropogenic climate change scepticism with Holocaust denial.

There are in fact perfectly valid objections to according homosexual couples identical rights to married heterosexual couples which have nothing at all to do with prejudice, or homophobia, but much to do with the objector’s conviction that, despite the acknowledged need to eliminate as much harmful and unfair discrimination against homosexual individuals and couples as possible, society overall nevertheless benefits from a special status being reserved to the traditional heterosexual family. This view was elegantly articulated today by Senator Le Marquand, who deserves a substantial plaudit for taking the lone stand that he did, not from prejudice, but from principle.

To some who believe that the status of the traditional married heterosexual family as the bedrock of a free society is deliberately threatened – under the cloak of ending perceived discrimination - from both the state and the non-state cultural left, the wish to reserve to it alone just a few legal, civil and fiscal advantages available to no other form of union is a societal judgment, not a homophobic one. Treating non-married couples, whether homosexual or heterosexual, identically, as well as eminently fairly and justly, save for a few advantages enjoyed only by married heterosexual couples, can legitimately be argued from a standpoint which is neither prejudicial nor discriminatory.

Clameur de Haro does not necessarily adhere to the views described in the two preceding paragraphs: but he does however adhere to the view that their opinions deserve a rather more respectful critique than Mr Bright’s rather crude attempt to denigrate them as being merely rooted solely in homophobic prejudice.

CdeH can find that in the Guardian and other organs of similar ilk any day of the week – not, please, in the editorial columns of the Jersey Evening [sic] Post.

Add to del.icio.usDigg It!Stumble This

And The Public Sector Gravy Train Just Keeps On A-Rollin'………

Yet another example reaches Clameur de Haro's in-box of questionable workforce expansion done with a cavalier disregard for its impact on the public finances.

This time it's in Harbours, and involves the recent recruitment, apparently, of an assistant to the so-called Development Director, Myra Shacklady.

Clameur de Haro has not met the lady in question, but his friends in diverse parts of the maritime community assure him that throughout their particular world the prevailing view of Ms Shacklady's demonstrated expertise and competence is one of near-total derision: "complete waste of space" being the phrase most often employed (and also, it has to be said, the politest).

In the current straitened condition of the public finances, one might have thought that with precious little States-funded development likely to be undertaken in the Harbours in the next few years, the need for a full-time so-called development director was debatable, and that the responsible course of action would have been to reduce the role to a 3-day week, with a 40% salary cut. That, after all, is the kind of measure that many businesses in the hard-pressed private sector, both here and in the UK, are being forced to take as they struggle to survive.

But, of course, this is the public sector, and Jersey. Where not only has it been decreed that this kind of cost-saving in the public interest is unthinkable, but that moreover Ms Shacklady actually requires an assistant director, no less. And where Harbours' business case for the additional post was allegedly signed off by a Treasury Minister otherwise exhorting (not too forcefully, it has to be said) curbs on spending.

It gets worse. Clameur de Haro's source reveals that the preferred candidate found the maximum salary for the post's advertised grade to be insufficient and unacceptable, whereupon the salary offer was raised by about 10% to secure the candidate's services.

No doubt all those people affected by the redundancies announced so far this year in the private sector will be comforted by the knowledge that the direction of Harbours development is at no risk of being under-resourced.

Add to del.icio.usDigg It!Stumble This

It's Another World Out There On Planet Public Sector

Clameur de Haro notes with exasperation that, while Jersey's wealth and tax revenue generating, but currently hard-pressed, private sector continues to shed staff as it struggles with reduced profitability and business volumes, the public sector in contrast appears to remain blissfully recession-proof - certainly as far as ongoing recruitment to the public payroll is concerned.

A quick look at the jobs vacancies section of the http://www.gov.je/ website reveals that "States of Jersey" is the second highest category for current vacancies, including this one -

Apart from the obvious irony inherent in upping headcount by recruiting a "workforce planner", CdeH wonders why, in a time of financial stringency, this isn't a function automatically required of Departmental Chief Executives and/or their existing senior staff as part of their core management role, and why it's necessary to hire an additional resource to undertake it, particularly when, assuming the part-time nature amounts to, say, a 25-hour week, the total employment costs are likely to approach at least an additional £35k on to the public payroll.

Why is no politician questioning this seemingly relentless expansion of public sector employment?

Add to del.icio.usDigg It!Stumble This

The JDA's Scintillating Standards of Numeracy

In this blogpost today, the JDA's "Pandora", perhaps a little lacking in awareness of matters mathematical, refers us to Mahatma Gandhi's own list of 7 deadly sins - and then purports to enunciate them as requiring display at the entrance to the States' Chamber for all to read.

However, complete fulfilment of that exhortation may unfortunately prove slightly problematical, as the list contains only 6.

If this is indicative of the JDA's grasp of numbers, Heaven help us all should one of them ever succeed in getting into a position to influence economic or taxation policy.

However, there is, as they say, some previous form here - Clameur de Haro recalls that, last December, Geoff Southern appeared to think that obtaining the least number of votes in States' elections to ministerial positions somehow meant that he was actually the preferred choice of members.

CdeH wonders if the missing 7th deadly sin was perhaps "Electioneering without Fraud". That might explain its omission, on the grounds of potential embarrassment.

Add to del.icio.usDigg It!Stumble This

Another Example of the All-Intrusive State

The suffocating embrace of Jersey's increasingly all-intrusive state continues, it seems, to grow apace.

Clameur de Haro has received the missive below from the rather grandiosely-titled Assistant Director, Environmental Protection, reminding him that oil spillage can (only can?) cause long-term damage to the environment (well Good Heavens - whoever would have guessed?) and enjoining him to affix to his oil tank a sticker urging preventive measures apparently derived, not so much from accumulated environmental expertise, as from the Handbook of the Bleedin' Obvious.

Check, CdeH is beseeched, the oil level in your tank before ordering more oil: gosh, never would have thought to do that.

Now Clameur de Haro would never, other than indulging in a little urinary extraction at the expense of the jobsworths, decry the need to protect our natural environment from avoidable pollution of this type (the need to expose and attack constantly the fallacies of the Great Anthropogenic Climate Change Scam being an entirely different matter). But there are a couple of aspects here which are troubling - apart from the obvious one of yet more public expense.

Firstly, to what extent was the public made aware that the 2007 Building Bye-Laws contained a provision requiring the display of an oil care sticker on domestic oil tanks? This in itself is a comparatively innocuous requirement, but what if it had been something altogether more drastic and far-reaching? Building Bye-Laws are either made by the Minister or go through the States Assembly on the nod with precious little scrutiny, so where was the information to the public?

Secondly, and even more disturbing, just how is the Planning and Environment Department aware that Clameur de Haro even has an oil tank? The majority of his neighbours use gas, and his tank installation was not one that required planning permission at the time it was undertaken, so from where, precisely, is P&E's information derived? The obvious inference has to be that it came from the oil suppliers, who presumably made their customer databases (and what else? - amount of oil usage?) available to P&E for the purposes of the latter's mailshot.

If so, then the oil suppliers have quite possibly breached local data protection legislation, and the States of Jersey in turn have either been complicit, or even procured the breach. CdeH provides personal information to his oil suppliers for the purposes of his business relationship with them, not in the expectation that it will be passed on to the agents of the state, and he will be taking this up with them.

Perhaps Jersey's Data Protection Commissioner, one of the few senior public officials for whom CdeH has much time, could adjudicate.

Add to del.icio.usDigg It!Stumble This

Privatise Jersey Post – Now!

Over at Jersey 24/7, Clameur de Haro’s fellow-blogger made the point a couple of days ago that it’s time Jersey Post was sold off. His reasoning was based specifically on the potential damage likely to be inflicted on the local retail sector by Jersey Post’s new Ship2Me service, but he is undoubtedly right in the wider context as well. The case for the full privatisation of this business and its disposal out of public sector ownership and control entirely is overwhelming.

Initially, the economic philosophy argument. Generally, being naturally less efficient than private enterprise, government should restrict itself to providing only those services which the private sector is unable or unwilling to provide. Throughout Europe, mail and postal services are increasingly shown to be capable of being willingly delivered by the private sector at reasonable cost and to an acceptable return. Where is the compelling evidence that Jersey is an exception?

Subsequently, the practical points. A Jersey Post continuing in even partial public sector ownership is undesirable on at least three counts: firstly, it’s a monopoly, which is bad enough; secondly, it’s a public sector monopoly, which is even worse; and thirdly, it’s a unionised public sector monopoly, which virtually guarantees sub-optimal operation and unresponsive customer service.

Any reader who doubts the latter should try visiting Broad Street on a busy lunchtime and noting what proportion of total counter positions are actually open. Rarely does the ratio exceed 50% (even during the long queues of the annual pre-Christmas rush): presumably this is mainly because of union resistance to instituting shift patterns which would deploy the greatest numbers of customer-facing staff precisely at the times of peak customer demand, exacerbated by an inherent management disincentive, stemming from the business’ position as a semi-state-owned monopoly with guaranteed protection from competition, to even tackle this issue.

Does anyone really imagine that this degree of insensitivity to customer demand could be sustained if Jersey Post was a 100% private sector enterprise accountable to multiple shareholders, and forced moreover to compete with other mail service providers on price and service levels? As many of CdeH’s acquaintances have remarked, it was only the arrival of Sure and the ending of Jersey Telecoms’ monopoly which forced JT to provide a retail facility in the main shopping precinct.

And then, to add insult to injury, in recent years the wealth-creating private sector has had to endure the sight of Jersey Post executives both publishing excessively self-congratulatory annual statements and paying themselves handsome bonuses commensurate with private sector out-performance in the face of stiff competition; totally unjustified in the case of a protected, esentially public sector monopoly.

It’s a fairly openly-expressed opinion in the Island’s financial and business community that when the full disposal of Jersey Post was looked at a few years ago, potential buyers were scared off by the size and extent of the potential future liabilities represented by the (typically for the public sector) exceptionally generous but under-funded employees’ pension scheme. And that only by promising that the taxpayer, rather than the purchasers, would retain these liabilities could the States even get potential buyers to pursue their initial interest.

Neither that particular issue, nor the strength of the conceptual argument for full privatisation, nor the opportunity cost to the Island of the States’ non-realisation of this asset at a time of financial stringency, are going to go away at any time in the foreseeable future. And transferring Jersey Post to private ownership in its entirety would also blunt the criticisms from retailers about its (totally legitimate) expansion of fulfilment business on the grounds of its public sector component.

It’s vital therefore that the States develop the resolve to resist and defeat the inevitable specious arguments – which will be superficially predicated on fears of reduced customer service, but will actually be founded on ideological committment to state ownership and hostility to private enterprise – and move to end both Jersey Post’s increasingly indefensible monopoly and its protected, even quasi-public sector, status.

Add to del.icio.usDigg It!Stumble This

A Clear Case of Black (Ian) and White (Wash)

It's not often that Clameur de Haro finds himself agreeing with Geoff Southern about anything, but CdeH stands four-square with Mr Southern in his condemnation of the glossing-over by a clearly embarrassed and defensive Establishment of the incompetence and dereliction of fiduciary duty to the taxpayer exhibited by States' Treasurer Ian Black (who, CdeH notes, reportedly attempted to deflect the blame on to the former TTS CEO) in failing to ensure that the incinerator contract was hedged against an adverse exchange rate movement.

This is such a basic requirement - in CdeH's private sector worlds, both past and present, even comparatively junior mid-level finance executives are aware of the need to hedge a substantial currency risk exposure - that its omission virtually defies belief.

Are we to assume that no-one at all, in either the Treasury or TTS, realised the need? Because if that really is the case, then the implications for the management of Jersey's public finances, politely describable as sub-optimal at the best of times, are truly frightening. And the proposal to place Treasury accountants in all departments suddenly looks like not a very good idea at all.

Catching up on the last couple of weeks' Jersey Evening [sic] Post's back numbers since returning to the fold, Clameur de Haro spied Christine Herbert's Business Focus of 28 July, revealing that the Treasury is to deploy more public funds into the markets: presumably this will involve Mr Black's professional oversight of the investment strategy and the investment advisers.

Time for Under The Mattress as a safer option, maybe?

Add to del.icio.usDigg It!Stumble This

Back to Jersey – and Back to the Blogosphere

Clameur de Haro found it a stimulating and rewarding experience living and working again in the Far East for the past few months: but with his last-ever overseas assignment having come to an end, and now lately arrived back on the Blessed Rock for good, he feels it’s time to pick up once again the reins of rightwards-inclined posting, to balance a little the local blogosphere’s majority leftward slant.

So, catching up, to what extent have the numerous undesirable features of the Island’s politico-economic landscape which CdeH hitherto railed against improved in his absence? And despite keeping intermittently in touch with events from afar, what does CdeH find on his return the land of his birthright?

Many of the answers, sadly, are not encouraging.

A still-bloated public sector, where spending appears predominantly out of control, where budgetary discipline seems lax or non-existent, and where sufficient determination to tackle either to the large extent actually necessary (as opposed to some cosmetic tinkering at the margins) looks less likely than snowdrifts in August.

Terry the Taxer and Ozo the Bozo purporting to direct an economic strategy which announced an appallingly cynical curtailment of front-line patient services and public facilities, but retracted immediately when objections were made – if cuts were (wrongly) thought necessary in the first place, why were they not defended robustly, however unjustifiable they were? And their cohorts and satraps already musing about raising indirect tax rates.

A government which almost certainly will have neither the vision nor the courage to go through with implementing much-needed staffing cuts, an absolute pay freeze, and pensions reform in public sector employment, nor any inclination to contemplate shrinking the size of the state by withdrawing from activities better undertaken by private enterprise.

A policing function with an effectiveness reportedly all but paralysed by internal strife, but still retaining the ability to commit the unbelievably ham-fisted bungling of what ought to have been a low-key routine investigation, thereby giving that malignant pipsqueak Syvret a golden opportunity to revel in his much-loved but self-proclaimed martyr status.

How depressing too, to see that the vast majority of the local politics blogs remain firmly anchored at the left-green end of the spectrum: some still obsessing, ostrich-like, with conspiracy theories about cover-ups or justice-denial to the exclusion of all else (and goodness knows, there’s no shortage of other things to get worked up about in this mis-governed island), while others continue to proselytize pernicious eco-authoritarian greenery.

At least Ratleskutle, Tony’s Musings, and Jersey 24/7 are still out there, providing a bit of much-needed wider variety of subject-matter.

So Clameur de Haro looks forward to a resumption of both promoting the alternative free-market and liberal prescriptions of a smaller state, reduced public spending, lower taxes and enhanced individual freedoms, and rebutting the authoritarian collectivist fallacies peddled by the pink leftists and their green fascist allies of convenience. Just as a taster for the latter, CdeH spied, on his pre-departure sojourn in a certain Far East airport, this entertaining piece in the Jakarta Globe about a ceiling collapse in a virtually new school building in Cirebon, West Java. Do, please, note the last sentence –

“Dedi Windiagiri, the head of the Cirebon school board, denied that the contractor was to blame. Climate change, he said, was the true cause of the accident.”

Really, you couldn’t make it up, could you? Ridiculous? Of course. But as an example of the fundamental dishonesty of so many genuflectors before the altar of the green religion, and their desire desperation to attribute any misfortune at all, whatever its cause, to the great holy mantra of climate change, regrettably not untypical.

Add to del.icio.usDigg It!Stumble This

Christmas Eve - Presents From Santa

So, wonders Clameur de Haro? as Christmas Eve advances, what goodies will some of our allegedly prominent citizens and putative lords and masters find in their festive stockings when they wake up tomorrow morning?

Trying to fathom what they may themselves have asked for in their letters to Father Christmas would probably be fairly futile, so CdeH? will just take a quick stab at what presents Santa, being a wise old cove, might usefully decide to leave one or two of them to find when they excitedly tear off the wrappings………………

Terry Le Sueur – destined, one fears, to be disappointed at not receiving a course of public speaking lessons, but hopefully to find, as consolation, an interactive CD called “Effective Communication”.

Philip Ozouf – for the man who claimed firstly, that adding GST individually to each item rather than overall at the till would not be inflationary, and secondly, that the inflationary effect – and yes, Ozo, we all spotted the contradiction - would only be temporary because it would drop out of the calculation after a year (which is a bit like saying that after 9 months pregnancy you’re back to where you were before because you’re no longer pregnant), there really can be only two presents: “Economics For Dummies”, and a modicum of modesty to carry into 2009.

Stuart Syvret – CdeH? first thought that a bile-stained, cracked and warped mirror might be appropriate, so that the People’s Tribune could see himself as others see him, but probably even more appropriate, not to mention instructive, would be a copy of “Murphy on Evidence” and a large slice of humble pie - plus of course a new pile of slinging mud.

Graham Power – a copy of “The Invisible Man”, and a one-way airline ticket - to anywhere.

Jim Perchard – for the new Minister of Health and Social Services, enough nous to assess whether the reported £60m “New Directions” policy on the restructuring of health and social services is just that, or in fact a smokescreen for a further extension of state interference into the private sphere, and a covert justification for retaining or expanding the H & SS bureaucracy

The Editor of the Jersey Evening [sic] Post – the inspiration and courage to launch a fully online edition, with archive search.

Any Parish Administration – any idea for a more meaningful role in the community than the present one of largely minor relevance in practical terms to the majority of islanders’ daily lives.

The Data Protection Registrar – as the only official whose powers CdeH? would not curtail, all the facilities and funding needed to prevent the insidious onward march of the database state, and the continuing independence to speak out when required

The Barclay Brothers – a compulsory purchase order for Colditz-en-Brecqhou, without compensation, validly enacted by Sark’s Chief Pleas and signed by every member.

Clameur de Haro? wishes a very happy and peaceful Christmas to his fellow-bloggers, but above all to the men and women of our Armed Forces serving overseas, continuing to safeguard our freedoms and serve their country, despite being traduced daily by a media and political class not fit to lick their boots or clean their latrines.

Add to del.icio.usDigg It!Stumble This

Southern (Dis)Comfort

Clameur de Haro? found it highly amusing to see in today’s Jersey Evening [sic] Post an entire vineyard’s worth of sour grapes on public display from a Geoffrey Southern evidently piqued that a majority of States’ Members failed on no fewer that three occasions over the past few days to recognise his indisputable entitlement and suitability (well, in his eyes, anyway) for either a ministerial post or panel chairmanship.

His dreary allegations of “shameless politicking by ministers”, and his hyperbole about “complete and utter disrepute”, apart from their utter predictability, are risible. Mr Southern should, as our transatlantic allies say, just do the math.

CdeH? notes that, on each poll, the votes cast against him added up to 2 or 3 times the number of ministers which had actually been appointed at that stage: so clearly others, apart from ministers or ministerial hopefuls, shared on each occasion the latters’ (presumed) distaste at the prospect of a Southern ascendancy.

Ignoring the twisted logic which claims that fewer votes somehow equates to an opinion that he would do a better job, Mr Southern’s suggestion that the appointed chairmen of the Economic Affairs and Corporate Services Scrutiny Panels would provide less robust questioning than he would is patently absurd.

Mere tendency towards left-wing, so-called “progressive” politics does not automatically confer the required degree of knowledge and incisiveness, Mr Southern: Clameur de Haro? has far more confidence in the likelihood of Higgins and Ferguson holding Terry the Taxer and the very doubtful Ozo the Bozo properly to account.

And his forecast of the impending advent of party politics as a result of his thrice being rejected is nothing short of hilarious. What precisely are those three letters upon which Mr Southern hangs his electoral hat?

Back to The Guardian and Mad Polly Toynbee for inspiration, Geoff…………..

Add to del.icio.usDigg It!Stumble This

Wendy Kinnard – Good Riddance (Part 2)

So farewell then, Wendy Kinnard – who as of last week no longer blights Jersey with her political subterfuge and spectacular ministerial unfitness.

Hard as it is to beat the record of sheer incompetence which Trendy Wendy displayed in her political stewardship of La Moye Prison, Clameur de Haro? reckons that the ineptitude she displayed in political oversight of the Police during her tenure of office, firstly as Vice-President and then President of the old Home Affairs Committee, and subsequently as Minister of Home Affairs, comes pretty close.

Kinnard was closely involved in the disastrous recruitment of Graham Power as Chief of Police in 2000. Despite having no particular qualifications or expertise in any kind of candidate evaluation, interview, or selection, politicians always consider themselves to be somehow blessed with these skills, and the States’ records of the time reveal that Trendy Wendy, a politician not noticeably troubled by any detectable excess of modesty or doubt about her own intellect and abilities, and who would have considered herself eminently suited to participation in the selection process, was a member of the interviewing and appointment panel: it’s surely inconceivable that, as Vice-President of the Home Affairs Committee, she did not play a pivotal role in the appointment.

As CdeH? posted on 6 December, Mr Power, distinguished since his arrival in Jersey by nothing so much as a constant near-invisibility, had up to that time enjoyed a previous career most remarkable for, firstly, his attempt to sue the political authority of the Scottish Northern Constabulary for racial discrimination - on the grounds that he was English – when it (wisely in the opinion of CdeH?) passed him over for the role of Chief Officer, and, secondly, the quite extraordinary regard in which he was held by the rank-and-file rozzers in his previous post – so much so that they allegedly arranged his funeral for him - complete with vacant coffin.

It’s surely equally inconceivable that Kinnard did not play a similarly crucial role in the appointment of Lenny Harper to the post of Deputy Chief of Police in 2003, although by that time somebody, somewhere, no doubt aware of the way the wind might be blowing, had the foresight to involve Sir Ronnie Flanagan in the “rigorous assessment” of Harper’s fitness for the post following his recruitment as Chief Superintendent and Head of Operations the previous year. Whether that was indeed foresight, or alternatively precautionary political CYA tactics, is for the reader to judge in the light of subsequent events. CdeH? has certainly made his own judgement.

A reasonable subject for speculation though, is the extent to which Kinnard would have found Harper’s views on the nature of policing in a modern society most agreeable to her essentially leftist and so-called “progressive” politics: Harper, it will be recalled, had obtained an upper-second in Government and Politics, and gone on to secure a masters’ degree in Criminal Justice Studies.

Given the then cultural slant of degrees of that type, and their popularity among the new wave of senior police cadres committed more to the selectively managerialist and social-engineering philosophy of policing rather than to the crime-prevention / impartial law-enforcement one, it’s a very tenable proposition that his qualifications would have imbued Harper with many of the precepts of the political-correctness view of society and its approach to policing it: and that this would have chimed effectively with Kinnard’s own innate (but carefully concealed for public consumption) left-liberal radicalism.

Power, incidentally, sported his own MA in Politics, Philosophy & Economics obtained from Queens, Oxford, in 1979, which might well also have appealed to Trendy Wendy’s political worldview (you might have thought, might you not, that an aspiring senior copper would have wanted to acquire a graduate qualification in law or jurisprudence? - clearly a PPE was considered likely to be more in tune with the future zeitgeist).

The scene was therefore set for what was to follow.

Many, including CdeH?, remember the disturbing conduct of the police reinforcements imported from the UK around the time of the England-Portugal clash during the 2006 World Cup. After dramatically talking up a potential crisis (an early precursor, had we but realized it, of the Jersey Police management’s taste for the sensationalist press release), thereby increasing the likelihood of some kind of mayhem, the Police manifestly over-reacted, both to the implied threat of disorder (never likely to involve more than a couple of drunken yobs attempting ineffectively to indulge in handbags at ten paces), and to the little disturbance that did in fact occur.

Meanwhile, however, elderly ladies of impeccable behaviour and manners, seeking to do nothing more mayhem-generating than gain access to the Jersey Arts Centre, were subjected to frightening, intimidating, aggressive and threatening tactics from those UK reinforcements, gallantly arrayed in helmets, batons and riot shields (and why not?.......CdeH? recognizes that elderly ladies denied legitimate access to an arts centre were far more dangerous to public order than potential football hooligans, weren’t they?)

This was inescapably Kinnard’s responsibility. Of course, in no way should the head of any political authority charged with oversight of policing engage in political interference in the conduct of police operations: but to either passively allow or actively condone the introduction into Jersey of policing of methods of this kind was a failure of policy and oversight for which Kinnard must bear full blame.

The increasingly aggressive behaviour of the uniformed constabulary towards the public in general, and law-abiding motorists in particular, in the past few years is an unwelcome continuation of this trend. Clameur de Haro?, along with most of his acquaintance, believes this has much more to do with artificially massaging the Force’s published crime detection rate than it has to do with preventing general or car crime.

On more than one occasion, CdeH? has been stopped during the evening (when, it should be said, totally libation-free, stone-cold sober, in a car with all lights functioning perfectly, and nary a suspicion of anything remotely interpretable as even marginally erratic driving) and subjected to by turns surly and aggressive questioning. [“Looked as though your seat belt wasn’t on” was the most recent explanation proffered.] Remarkably however, when the plods are confronted with a reasonably articulate motorist who demands their names and numbers so that he can make a formal complaint about unjustified harassment, they back off.

This escalation of an intimidating style of general policing also happened on Trendy Wendy’s watch, politically. The supposition has to be that she tacitly approved, or, more likely, that she had so little idea of what political oversight of policing should involve that it didn’t occur to her to question what the constabulary’s general approach to the community it nominally serves should be, nor to require an explanation for what it manifestly is.

Finally, we come to the Haut de la Garenne imbroglio. If ever there was a case crying out above all for a calm, measured, unemotional, evidence-centric and supposition-free discharge of its responsibilities by the Jersey Police, this was surely it. Yet Harper, by this time either totally captured by, and an unwitting tool of, the agenda of the Kinnard-Syvret axis and their fellow-travellers, or signed up to that agenda of his own volition, was allowed over a long period of time to grandstand repeatedly with ill-informed speculation and value judgements to a media long on sensation-seeking but short on objectivity. A more egregious failure to exercise due political oversight of a police force is virtually impossible to imagine – the fault is that of Power’s at operational level, and at political level, that of Kinnard alone.

It seems unbelievable in retrospect that Kinnard should have been allowed anywhere near the April 2008 selection process for Warcup’s appointment to (mercifully) replace Harper, but that is what happened. Fortunately on this occasion, the beneficial influences of Messrs Liston, Ogley and Crich prevailed, or we might have had a Kinnard-driven extension of Harper’s contract.

What a disreputable litany of disaster this deplorable woman foisted on to the Island. It is immeasurably better for her departure.

Add to del.icio.usDigg It!Stumble This

You Should Have Stood Up and Been Counted, Mr Forskitt

Clameur de Haro? sees a both amusing and ironic linkage between the Jersey Evening [sic] Post’s editorial of Wednesday 10 December and Mark Forskitt’s blogpost of Friday 12 December.

In its 10 December leader, the JEP, clearly finding the prospect of Deputy James Reed’s appointment as Education Minister not to its liking (“…simply not credible….”), sought to suggest that he lacked the requisite levels of both experience and public support, largely on the grounds that he had not had to face the electorate in his own parish - as if Mr Reed was in some way either personally blameworthy, or a less than legitimate representative, because no-one decided to challenge him.

CdeH? will remember that leader, and take pleasure in re-airing it the next time the JEP lauds the unopposed re-election of a Constable by a small and unrepresentative coterie of parish officials as somehow a vindication of the inherent stability of that entirely mythical concept, “the Jersey way of life”. But that is by the way.

Meanwhile, Mr Forskitt, a resident in fact of Mr Reed’s constituency, draws comparisons between the recent elections in Sark (whose electors have CdeH?’s wholehearted approval for their two-fingered Agincourt Salute to the ogres of Colditz-en-Brecqhou) and Jersey’s recent “pitiful” elections: he says “….I believe it (democracy) is coming to Jersey too…”, and he wearily evokes the plight of “…we plebs, when faced with an election, ….”.

Clameur de Haro?, however, recalls that Mr Forskitt, despite his evident desire to get into the States, admitted quite openly on the Planet Jersey forum, in the run-up to the elections, that he would not risk standing in his home parish of St Ouen in opposition to Mr Reed, judging – correctly - that he would have no chance (sensible people, these electors of St Ouen): but speculated that he might instead try a spot of unashamed carpet-bagging and possibly have a crack at St Brelade No 1, where he thought there might be a bit more receptiveness to his greenery.

But in the end he did not do that either. Presumably when faced with the prospect of an election of his own, timidity and risk-aversion triumphed over the opportunity to bring democracy to the unfortunate, democracy-deprived citizenry of St Ouen and St Brelade………

Add to del.icio.usDigg It!Stumble This

Wendy Kinnard – Good Riddance (Part 1)

Clameur de Haro? is rejoicing that one of the more surreptitiously malign influences on Jersey politics in the last few years will soon no longer be a States’ Member.

Having shared some – but not very much – of the initial mystification at Ms Kinnard’s ministerial resignation, in almost indecent haste, on an apparently obscure and arcane technicality of legal procedure, barely days before the date of her own self-imposed departure, and having concurred totally with the widespread assumption that her position was, quite simply, completely untenable after the latest HdlG developments, CdeH? is delighted to witness her political demise.

For concealed behind the carefully cultivated façade, behind the image of caring representative of the vulnerable and champion of the disadvantaged, lies, at best, a serial incompetent in ministerial or quasi-ministerial office, and at worst, suspects CdeH?, an intensely radical cultural left-liberal who covertly espouses some of the worst tenets of politically correct activism.

Over the next blogpost or two, we’ll examine Trendy Wendy’s record in a couple of areas, focussing on her principal official role as Home Affairs Minister. Kinnard was Vice-President of the former Home Affairs Committee from 1999, and President from 2002, before becoming Minister of Home Affairs from December 2005. She’s therefore been continually involved at senior political level for 9 years.

We’ll go on to look at her ministerial performance in political oversight of the Jersey Police, before finally deconstructing the real reasons for her precipitate resignation, but we’ll start with her responsibility for La Moye Prison.

The 2001 UK HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) inspection of La Moye Prison, the first comprehensive such inspection undertaken in many years, was pretty damning (remember, this was on Trendy Wendy’s watch as Vice-President of the old Home Affairs Committee), and its connection or otherwise with the retirement of Keith Wheeler as Governor in December 2001, after a distinguished 23 years’ service, cries out for further study. Was he, wonders CdeH?, made the scapegoat?

In 2003, by which time Kinnard was President of the old HAC, more problems arose over prisoners breaching, apparently with a cavalier degree of insouciance, the terms of temporary release licences, creating such a degree of public disquiet as to cause her to make a Statement in the States on 7th October 2003. During that statement she referred to the 2001 Home Office Inspection, and claimed that no fewer 114 of its 147 recommendations had been implemented.

That however was clearly not the view of HMIP’s June 2005 Inspection, which in its Introduction stated “Few of the recommendations in our previous report in 2001 had been actioned four years later” , and went on to catalogue a litany of failings and deficiencies, many persisting from the inspection report of four years earlier. It transpired that the then Governor, Steven Guy Gibbens, who had in August 2004 replaced Wheeler’s successor, had been expressing concern at overcrowding and a general lack of adequate rehabilitative facilities since his arrival.

Then, in March 2006, a HMIP follow-up report averred that few of the recommendations of even the 2005 Inspection had been implemented. Yet CdeH? seems to remember Kinnard having the brass neck, without so much as a hint of embarrassment, contrition or acceptance of justified criticism, to sit alongside no less a professional than Chief Inspector of Prisons Ann Owers and say, in the best traditions of New Labour inclusive, evasive management-speak, how much she appreciated having these matters brought to her attention, how much she looked forward to working with HMIP in resolving them, and how much she would make HMP La Moye her priority “at the top of the States agenda”.

Er………just what were you supposed to have been doing for the previous 7 years, Ms Kinnard?

How redolent of the arrogance of the professional political operator, determined to cling to office no matter what, a particularly repellent example of the primarily self-serving political elite about which Peter Oborne writes so eloquently in “The Triumph of the Political Class”.

Steven Guy Gibbens resigned as Governor in August 2007, subsequently leaving in December 2007, only 3½ years into a 5 year contact: he mentioned as key to his decision the bureaucracy and resistance he had encountered in his efforts to try to carry out much needed improvements. Kinnard’s reaction however was to appear, firstly, to blame the States for not providing funding for improvements (although she had obviously not regarded such non-provision as a resigning matter), but secondly, to criticise Guy Gibbens and suggest that he “did not understand the Jersey way of doing things”………such as her doing nothing over the course of 8 years and 2 critical HMIP inspection reports, presumably.

That these two positions were and are mutually irreconcilable appears not to have occurred to Kinnard, or many other public officials: few however of CdeH?'s acquaintance missed the inherent contradiction.

Finally, in June 2008, we had the “indefinite detention without charge” foul-up, when Trendy Wendy arbitrarily took it upon herself to amend the previous 36 hours limitation on pre-charge detention, by authorizing the indefinite detention of suspects without charge, thereby not only making herself the envy of Gordon “42 Days” Brown, his sidekick Jacqui “The Lackey” Smith, and every authoritarian dictator ever inconvenienced by so irritating a hindrance as due process and the rule of law, but garnering the island much beneficial (or perhaps not……. ) publicity as a result.

She claimed to be doing so under delegated powers enjoyed by her as Minister under the terms of Jersey’s Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence Law. The only problem being that Kinnard unfortunately ignored that Law’s requirement to publish a draft of any changes and consult with interested parties, before such changes are actually made – she did neither, requiring a humiliating U-turn and climb-down.

It’s almost (but not quite) impossible to recall, in recent local political history, a poorer incumbent in a key ministerial or equivalent post than Kinnard and her track record of woeful under-performance. In the private sector, she would rightly have been discarded years ago – in the unlikely event, that is, that she would ever have been allowed near a position of responsibility in the first place.

Clameur de Haro? sincerely apologises to all readers for the inordinate length of this post – but feels it has been necessary to lay out, in all its awful detail, the repeated ministerial incompetence of one to whom CdeH? would never have entrusted even the running of his proverbial whelk stall.

Good riddance indeed.

Add to del.icio.usDigg It!Stumble This

GST Exemptions: Easy, Principled Adjustment - or Expensive, Bureaucratic Nightmare?

Clameur de Haro? has been looking in a little more detail today at Deputies’ Election candidates’ positions (well, their stated positions, anyway) on the thorny subject of GST exemptions.

Inexplicably, a sizeable number don’t actually mention the subject at all, which in view of its prominence, strikes CdeH? as extremely odd, to say the least.

Of those that do, and with the honourable exceptions of Ian Gorst in St Clement, Rod Bryans in St Helier, and John Le Fondre in St Lawrence, candidates universally declare their objection to its general application, and call for exemptions on, variously, food, heating supplies, and children’s clothing, or more usually a combination of all three.

But not a single one of them offers either the slightest estimate of the revenue shortfall which would result, or any proposal for meeting that shortfall, whether by reduced States’ spending or compensatory increases in tax elsewhere. This omission is fiscal irresponsibility of a high order.

Over at Tony’s Musings, Tony has (as usual) a thoughtful critique of Sean Power’s position (basically - it’s here, so let’s leave it settle for a while), and suggests that to exempt foodstuffs, heating and lighting, and children’s clothes really can’t be difficult or bureaucracy-creating to any significant degree.

Clameur de Haro? disagrees with Tony on this, though –

On foodstuffs, should we exempt, say, caviar, yet apply GST on toothpaste? That hardly seems to be in the spirit of what’s proposed.

On heating and lighting, say, should we really make no distinction between heating for the pensioner’s apartment, and heating for the multi-millionaire’s swimming pool? Or between lighting for the pensioner’s apartment kitchen and lighting for the multi-millionaire’s driveway? Both cases involve use of the same materials from the same supply sources. But that doesn’t seem equitable.

On children’s clothing, should we exempt, say, the expensive designer tops the relatively affluent might buy for diminutive but highly fashion-conscious 13-year old daughters, yet levy GST on the suit the man of modest means struggles to buy for his tall, well-built 16-year old son, newly left school and going for his first job interview? That hardly seems fair.

CdeH? is afraid that these kinds of dilemmas over definition and rating would occur all the time, and that additional, costly, bureaucracy and administration will be the inevitable result – producing a double-whammy, in fact, because the extra costs of it would have to be layered on to a smaller tax base. Which neatly completes the circle, because none of the exemption-favouring candidates either knows, or will tell us if they do know, how they would address the consequences.

For this reason, Clameur de Haro? will be sticking with one of the realists who, rightly, eschew facile, ill thought out promises, and have the courage to tell it like it is. But at the same time imploring them to grasp, in return, the nettle of arresting the inexorable growth of public spending by an administration to whom stringent fiscal discipline seems a wholly alien concept.

Add to del.icio.usDigg It!Stumble This

Centralised Driving Licence Records - Manifestation of the Database State?

Ever watchful for instances of our government’s persistent desire to expand the information about us it holds on official databases, Clameur de Haro? spied in last Friday’s JEP (7th November) a plea from Peter Hanning, the Connétable of St Saviour, for “almost 40,000” islanders, and more especially his own 5,400 parishioners, to submit their driving licence renewal applications early, because of the potential long delays involved in having them processed and returned.

Because there’s an important issue of data privacy and security to consider here, CdeH? will ignore just this once the none-too-subtle demand for £40 up front, as much as 4 months before it’s actually due, thereby enabling the parishes to pocket a tidy sum in interest on ratepayers’ money. (CdeH? trusts that Icelandic banks, credit derivatives, and sundry other exotic - or should that perhaps be toxic? - financial instruments are currently off limits for Parish Treasurers and Procureurs du Bien Public, but you never know…………)

What CdeH? finds much more disturbing are the implications of the post-application process. Look for a moment at Mr Hanning’s own words, and pay particular attention to the highlighted section –

“After you have handed in your application form to the Parish Hall, the details are checked and entered onto an Islandwide database before your photograph and form are scanned into the system. The licences are printed out and laminated in batches at the Town Hall in St Helier before being posted directly to your home address”.

Presumably, this Island-wide database is the one that already exists for driving licence holders’ details, and has done ever since the parishes ceased to be their own licensing authorities, and became merely the issuing authorities (a sop to the parishes if ever there was one, and administratively a very unsatisfactory half-way house which pleases few, and inconveniences the vast majority).

Nevertheless, CdeH? is instinctively suspicious, and would like answers to the following questions –

Is any additional information, over and above that required purely for driving licence purposes, secretly encrypted on to the credit card style licence?

Precisely who has access to the data, and for what purposes? Is access routinely available to all public bodies and officials, or only on a strict need-to-know basis, coupled with justification and authorization?

How tightly are access, viewing rights, and amendment rights controlled? Could, for example, a parish official in St Ouen snoop on the St Clement licence details of a prospective son-in-law, or fabricate an endorsement on to a business rival’s licence?

If law enforcement agencies have access rights in lawful course of their duties (not unreasonable, within limits), what safeguards are in place to prevent and detect improper use, of the kind not exactly unknown in the recent past?

What integration is there with other States’ databases, like Social Security and Income Tax? Could officials of Social Security, say, search for a cross-matching of names and addresses to check whether a recipient of serious incapacity benefit doesn’t also have a no-incapacity driving licence? Preventing benefit fraud by reasonable means is legitimate, but this kind of linkage allows covert spying on the population to a wholly unacceptable degree.

Licensees’ details include a raft of personal data, photographs, forms, and even signatures. With the existence of the database being public knowledge, and with even CdeH? being able to work out that it would yield a treasure trove of sensitive personal information for criminals, what barriers and firewalls are there to prevent data abstraction for nefarious purposes?

In which public body does political accountability for the centralised database reside? Is it the Comité des Connétables? If not, who? On whose desk sits that famous sign “The Buck Stops Here”? Who do we blame, whose head should roll, who should fall on their sword, if a catastrophic data loss or security breach was to occur? In short, just who’s in charge?

What precautions are taken to ensure that the data held about us will not either (1) be lost while being sent on an unencrypted, non-passworded CD-ROM via insecure mail: or (2) copied to a memory stick which then gets left in the pub: or (3) stored on a laptop which gets nicked from the back seat of a car while the owner hops out to pick up the paper on the way home? All three have happened in the UK during the past year.......

Would the States indemnify the database’s entire population from consequential loss occurring as a result of the leakage of sensitive personal data if caused by the States’ or their agents’ reckless or negligent custody? What’s the extent of third party liability cover carried by the States against this? Is it sufficient?

What does the database cost to establish and maintain? Is it cost-effective? Could it be outsourced at lower cost, provided that legitimate access was not impeded and security was not compromised?

And finally - have all the operating parameters and data protection measures been reviewed and signed off by the Data Protection Commissioner?

Now for a couple of other aspects.

Doesn’t the basic concept of an Island-wide driving licences database run counter to the hoary old argument that a system of 12 individual parishes constituting 12 separate issuing authorities is somehow one of the key manifestations of individual parish identity?

And from the purely practical standpoint, if a centralised, all-Island, driving licence database exists, then why on earth does CdeH?, say, on moving house from Trinity to St John, have to go through the archaic and time-consuming rigmarole of surrendering a Trinity licence and applying – probably in person too, for photograph verification - for a new St John version (plus the £40 fee, no doubt)? The widespread assumption among CdeH?’s acquaintances is that it’s to give parish administration at least the fiction of something to do……thereby adding, of course, to the cost of public bureaucracy.

CdeH? did not anticipate the need, quite so soon after launching Clameur de Haro?, to comment at such length on the threats to the privacy and security of islanders’ personal details posed by the unremitting expansion of the database state.

CdeH? is disinclined just to trust Big Brother, much less learn to love him. So satisfactory answers and reassurances please, Big Brother. And now.

Add to del.icio.usDigg It!Stumble This

A New Direction of Travel

Welcome to this the opening post from Clameur de Haro?

CdeH? is angry: in fact positively seething with exasperation and frustration at the poor quality of both the political philosophies currently on offer to the people of Jersey – and echoing the cry of Mercutio in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet.. “a plague a’ both your houses!”.

CdeH? is most definitely NOT an enthusiastic standard-bearer for Jersey’s current Council of Ministers and the present States’ Establishment, and believes that the wider electorate’s manifest disillusionment with both is amply justified. Yet, like so many of the Island’s silent majority, CdeH? shudders at the prospect of the potential damage should what may be called the Stuart Svvret Tendency and the JDA/Green Coalition gain political ascendancy.

CdeH? is convinced that there really does exist a radical alternative direction for the Island – one between, at the one extreme, the complacently inefficient, overly bureaucratic, excessively mercantilist, and fiscally irresponsible current government: and at the other extreme, the assorted collective of tax-and-spend egalitarian socialists, muddled-thinking talk-gooders, and mendacious eco-authoritarians, masquerading under a disparate variety of labels of the left, but all essentially wanting the same thing - a much more interventionist, enterprise-averse, anti-freedom and aggressively redistributive regime.

CdeH? contends that a significant number of Jersey’s current domestic problems stem from one thing – the sheer size, scale, and therefore cost of government and administration: that Jersey’s public sector is too large for the size of the population, and generally does too much: and that it compounds that error by doing so expensively and inefficiently – much, much more expensively and inefficiently than would private enterprise, because of government’s ability, and natural inclination, to increase the tax burden to cover expenditure, rather than control its activity and therefore its cost, so as to keep expenditure below the tax revenue achievable consistent with a flourishing, dynamic but also equitable society.

So – for CdeH? the direction of travel has to be to reducing the size and impact of the state, curtailing its remit, controlling its cost, and lowering its burden on the economy – by applying free-market and libertarian economic and social policy prescriptions, and eschewing the deceptively and superficially attractive solutions dangled by both persuasions.

From CdeH?'s position, poised in the Royal Square on the steps of the States' Assembly, this will be the approach put forward in the coming days, weeks and months.

Watch this space.

Add to del.icio.usDigg It!Stumble This