THE States’ economic thinking has shifted to the right, according to one long-standing deputy.
St Peter Port North’s John Gollop (pictured) has been in the House for more than 10 years and said that last month’s debate, which concentrated on social security contributions and the rejection of student loans, confirmed his thoughts on the matter.
‘For 20 years there was a different kind of States member who became popular in the House because they were among a group who were seen to be representing the working man, but they’ve now all gone. Carol Steere has come back but the others have all left, in either 2004 or 2008.’
Deputy Gollop cited Jean Pritchard, Peter Roffey, Ron Le Moignan, Roy Bisson and Dan Le Cheminant.
‘Many of the new members who have come in, although they are open-minded and come from very professional backgrounds, do, I think, tend to see things from the top end of society. Matt Fallaize is similar in some respects to those who used to represent the working man but you can see in the main that the viewpoints expressed in the assembly are much more conservative than even those you would have heard one or two years ago.’
Article posted on 6th October, 2008 - 2.29pm
Loading ...
7 Article Comments
It is immensely concerning if “economic thinking” in the States has shifted even further to the Right, as Deputy Gollop contends. The States of Guernsey should be like a bird. It needs a strong left wing as well as a right wing.
I think that deputy Gollop is exactly right in his thinking. A balanced representation and no bias is needed by any succesful governing body.
Alf Bougourd
All the popular Deputies voted for by the public, with the exception of a tiny minority, were of a more ‘people and environment’ direction. Interesting to note that the direction of the States is dominated by a few disliked characters.
It begs the question; what did these people have to do to secure a place at the captain’s table?
Maybe a bit of that ‘forceful personality’ was applied? Or some of that ‘if you don’t do what I suggest then we’re all doomed’ so favoured by the right wing?
It is typical on discussion boards to have personal insults thrown at those who seek a less conservative and more socially dynamic point of view. It is not uncommon to have the word ‘communist’ or ‘turn us into North Korea’ or ‘Stalin’ thrown in the general direction of those that are seeking a bit of justice, and these are terms used from one politician to another, a lot of the time, through anonymous posts.
Right wing ideology has all but destroyed the global banking system. The banks are begging governments for tax payers’ money. Bush is more of a socialist than Hugo Chavez. Yet we still cling on to this faith-based notion that if we believe the very type of people that can crash such an expensive vehicle then all shall bathe in opulence.
We need balance and we need less of the behind-the-scenes strings that are guiding those at the political top into making (or rather not making) decisions that will benefit the majority.
Unfortunately the characters driving the bus are such a turn off that it is unlikely that anyone would want to have to face their strong arm tactics (Nazis, Dave Jones, are you sure? Some people would want to punch your [expletive deleted] teeth out for that sort of remark).
There ought to be no radicalism in Guernsey. An easily manageable population with a thriving, rich industry should be a happy place to live. It is in the most part, just not in some very important parts.
Witness the mass incinerator. Unwanted, unnecessary, proven wasteful and yet the same people that have wanted its development are still turning a blind eye to the findings.
What hope have we got when deeply unpopular politicians, who scraped in on the ridiculous 6 or 7 votes each make these decisions?
Lawrence are you seriously saying that the new democratically-elected “people and environment” deputies have had their views changed and their wings clipped by horrible, nasty right wingers who have bullied them into thinking their way ? It really wouldn’t say much about the calibre or strength of character of those newly-elected deputies if indeed it were true.
You said it, David.
I imagine there were a number of ‘lunches’, where the new deputies, or maybe some existing but floating (or influential with the public) deputies, were ‘offered’ positions on committees and the like, in exchange for votes to the round table.
Call me speculative, but that’s how the world works, no?
Speculation provides jobs, does it not David, betting on losses and the like, all that wealth generation trickling down in all benevolence. I also imagine that the few people that make a lot of money in just such negativity are the ones with the biggest access to political ears. When times are good politicians come out honking like peacocks, when there is bad news they are “unable to comment”. The lack of honesty within our ruling elite becomes more apparent everyday.
How does this tie in with right/left ideology? Well, the numbers that have been bandied about by ‘go for growth’ campaigners have been wrong. We have been asked to ‘have faith’ with our leaders, to ‘believe’ the institutions, and why wouldn’t we? They are spun to be our saviours, our aspiration facilitators, we slavishly follow the numbers as if our lives depended on it. Believing these suits is a superstition, created by the ‘market’ to ensure there is a ‘market’.
Wealth has been created in Guernsey. The new cars, the constant building development, the increasing cosmopolitan nature of St Peter Port, and of course this is all good. The question is, can it continue? Shouldn’t we be aiming to consolidate? Use that wealth to protect ourselves from exposure?
No, the rabid ideology of the banking class is alive and kicking despite the complete cock-up that is unfolding with dramatic frequency. The deputies that support this have the power and the experience to see off any challenge (laughing at sane proposals in the House, who do these rich old men think they are?).
As far as I can see, there isn’t much ‘left’ in Guernsey. There are socially minded deputies that wish equality of burden, but that doesn’t make them ‘communists’ or ‘living in cloud cuckoo land’. Yet that’s the derision they face.
You tell me, David, if the balance is correct and we can have grown men, experienced businessmen, ‘pillars of society’ RIDICULING such basic concepts of justice and equality.
It doesn’t take John Gollop to point this out, anyone who follows the incompetent goings on can see that the States is hobbled by a few, vocal and ‘embedded’ people.
Just see how Mike Torode’s ‘blip in the UK economy’ quote of last year sums up the pitiful arrogance of this set.
Not on my watch, indeed.
Sorry Lawrence but its clear that you cannot handle democracy. The people of Guernsey democratically voted in every single deputy in the States of Deliberation but that’s still not good enough for you because they aren’t left-thinking enough for your liking.
We can only elect from those willing to stand and the people voted for those elected. However, you choose to dream up a conspiracy theory to convince yourself that all of the new deputies have been “nobbled”. I repeat my earlier comment that if that were true then it would really undermine their integrity. Why on earth would they compromise what they stand for ? I think that would be nothing but an insult to all of them.
David
I don’t think there is a conspiracy. probably more of a traditional ‘establishment’ idea of how things should be done. It wouldn’t do, would it, to have some upstarts questioning the authority of our elder statesmen? So when we have dynamic politicians asking serious questions of our raison d’etre what do we get? Derision and personal insults. Acceptable?
Anyway, what compromise? Woolly manifestos promising ‘hard work’ and ‘doing what I believe is right for Guernsey’? The States seems to attract the ‘older businessman’ and so the dynamic is bound to be ‘business first’. I’m not suggesting nobbling, I’m suggesting forceful argument to novice politicians about the perils of not listening to the establishment.
Again you are jumping to conclusions with my posts. Why can’t we question the reasons of some decisions? The electoral facts are that the people in the top positions, apart from Dep Parkinson, did badly in the polls. Those that did well were obviously not rated by the rest of the house for some reason.
I think my point is, if we are to view the SoD as left/right then I think there should be some declaration by members. It is overwhelmingly obvious that there are clear divisions on major issues between factions (when I say factions, I mean loose coalitions of similar argument), so it would be beneficial to democracy, as in to incentivise the public, if they knew whether the guy they voted for because they used to know his dad or rescued their cat from a tree once, stood for this or for that.
Anyhow, the PSRC fiasco, and the willingness to give pay real term pay cuts to essential workers speaks for itself. It needs to opposed, and it needs a concerted effort.