States throw out island-wide voting
Friday 25th February 2011, 11:30AM GMT.
ISLAND-WIDE voting has been rejected.
After five hours of debate members came down against both options on the table – electing all 45 deputies island-wide or 10 island-wide and 35 by district.
It means that the 2012 general election will take place on a district basis, as it did in 2004 and 2008.
The States Assembly and Constitution Committee proposed the full island-wide system, although its chairman Ivan Rihoy was behind the other plan which he described as a ‘sensible and logical compromise’.
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. See below for subscription details.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
Why do we need so many deputies, fewer deputies will mean more money in the pot for all the crap they want to do.
Report abuse
So once again the arm of the unwanted strike.
Surely if the people want an Island wide vote then it should be allowed.
Was it not a vote to say yes.?
Well now the people know. get rid of all this dead wood and elect those who listen to the people
Report abuse
7000 people were not ignored – 53000 were listened to.
Just because someone fills in a questionaire, it doesn’t mean they are right!!
Report abuse
Why would the deputies ever vote for an alternative system which could weaken their prospects of being voted in to a position where they are paid well to represent OUR views and act in the best interests of the Island!?!
Report abuse
Out of interest, I asked a few voters at work if they were in favour of being able to elect the whole assembly – not one person was interested in trawling through dozens of manifestos rather than the manageable number which we are used to.
I then asked a few non-voters if IWV would suddenly spur them to vote and, not surprisingly, not one of them indicated that this would be the case.
Sorry deputies, voter apathy has more to do with misguided opinions, wildly inaccurate ‘pub talk’ and the rather strange idea that if you vote for someone, they will instantly revoke all their strongly held beliefs written on their manifesto and vote the opposite way.
Unfortunately it is easier not to vote and because many people are to blinkered or lazy to gain an understanding of how democracy works, it has become cool to say, “well of course I don’t vote – they’re all corrupt anyway!”
In the last 20 years we have chased democracy at the expense of good govenment with strong leadership. We have bowed down to the great god of ‘consultation’ to the extent that billets are twice as thick as they need to be and good, timely decisions are rare.
Oh, and if we stopped pouring money into the pockets of those who just don’t want to do an honest day’s work, we might see a bit more interest at election time.
Report abuse
I for one support this decision wholeheartedly. The idea of IWV is good in principle but I wasn’t convinced by either proposed solution.
In the absence of anything better stick with what you’ve got.
I also agree with Andre’s first 4 paragraphs – I sincerely doubt bringing in IWV would result in a significant long term increase in voting numbers. The roots of apathy are far deeper than that, unfortunately.
Report abuse
Well done deputies. Another correct decision.
IWV is simply unworkable. End of.
Oh and STOP BLONEY SAYING IT’S WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT. YOU may want it, but you are NOT the mouthpeice of the population.
Report abuse
Deputy Jones
You are not in charge of everything!!! Hurrah!!
“The fact of the matter is” that the majority of voters do not want change to IWV and this will be shown to be true at the ballot box next time round.
Report abuse
Ed
I am truly relieved to hear that I am not in charge of everything. I said clearly in my 2008 manifesto that I fully supported IWV and I would not betray that electoral promise by voting opposite to that when it came to the vote. I don’t know what the majority of voters want, I said in my speech a significant number wanted IWV. I know my phone hasn’t stopped today with people calling telling me that they are as disappointed as I am that the proposition was lost. This was about choice, at present the electorate can only choose 6 or 7 candidates out of 45, I don’t think that is right and I said so yesterday.
Report abuse
IWV was championed by several populist deputies who were quick to gather even more votes in the last 24 hrs by pretending their hearts bled at this apparent slap to the face of the people. i heard deputy jones and deputy lowe in fine form.
the states decision was a good, rational one. shame about the defeat on decreasing the number of deps however – that surely is a place to start reform.
what most people may want has to be tempered by the state unless anything goes. perhaps the majority would bring back hanging until they got close up and personal with the reality. ivw would not be the panacea some thought it might be – how on earth did people think decisions would change for the better that way?
meanwhile i’ll keep spoiling my paper until someone with a brain AND a heart turns up in my parish.
Report abuse
Common sense prevailed (almost)but
they didnt even debate the proposal to reduce the number of deputies
why?
what a pathetic spineless bunch of useless muppets
we really dont neet 47 deputies
you know that
i know that
but they dont?
why?
absolutely contemptible and despicable
shame on those of you who opposed any debate
come on Matt F and Dave J – you read this forum
what on earth is going on?
Report abuse
Deputy Jones, although I don’t happen to agree with you on this occasion, I commend you for sticking to your guns in the vote.
Report abuse
Does this not show the blatant arrogance of the States members
I thought they were elected to represent the the views of the islanders,clearly not,7000 people mean nothing to them,
So islanders, at the next election, lets not not vote for any of them, in fact why bother going out to vote at all, these people do not care what you as an individual think, and as they have now proved they couldn’t give a monkies about the general population,
It seems like we the people who pay their very generous ‘wages’ and expenses and jollies all over the world on ‘fact finding ‘ trips do not even deserve to be heard.
Sack the lot of them, they are not worth the bother of taking any notice of anymore, oh, I forget myself, we’ll have to take a vote on whether they should be sacked or not, guess what the result will be ?
Report abuse
Jack and son of blah, you are exactly right. I suspect that if you were to do a proper poll of the people and not the loaded, flawed and ridiculous exercise carried out by Deputy Rihoy’s SAC committee, you would find that the people want a slimmed down States much more than they do the populist nonsense of IWV.
I think Deputy Steere’s plan was along the right lines. Keep the same seven constituencies but with five deputies in each and at general election time also run an island wide vote in Alderney to find ONE Alderney deputy to sit in the Guernsey States of Deliberation. In other words 36 deputies in all.
As things stand Alderney is over represented in Guernsey’s parliament. The population of Alderney is roughly one 36th of Guernsey’s so a slimmed down Guernsey States would be a good opportunity to address this anomaly as well.
Report abuse
I voted to debate the reduction in numbers so did Matt, not that I necessarily agree with some of the arguments for it but because it would have been worth having a debate on the subject so at least the arguments could have been heard in the proper place.
Report abuse
Martyn /Ed
I wonder if our leaders would sit up and really take notice if the 7,000 who stated that they preferred Island Wide Voting actually wrote that message on their 2012 ballot papers?
Turkeys – Christmas?
Report abuse
Jack,
In my view, a procedural mechanism was misused to prevent debate on Deputy Steere’s proposal to reduce the number of deputies.
Where an amendment to a proposition goes further than that proposition, Rule 13(6) permits the putting of a motion that the amendment be not debated – and such a motion is carried if supported by just one-third of the Assembly.
It is a perfectly sensible rule which was introduced some years ago to guard against the risk of amendments being laid which had absolutely nothing to do with the matters under consideration. For example, it would not be sensible to debate an amendment to introduce paid parking laid against a report dealing with the future of healthcare.
On this occasion, the subject matter of Deputy Steere’s amendment – a reduction in the number of States members – was covered extensively in the States Assembly & Constitution Committee’s report and members had known for more than six months that such an amendment was very likely to be laid when island wide voting returned to the States. Technically the amendment went further than the proposition because while SACC proposed an Assembly of 45 deputies, Deputy Steere proposed an Assembly of 38 – but I cannot believe that the original architects of the rule envisaged it being used to block debate on that sort of amendment, nor can the members who voted to block debate possibly claim genuinely that they were not in receipt of sufficient information to debate the amendment.
I have no strong view either way about whether the number of deputies should be reduced, although I think it would be a mistake to do so without reducing the number of States Department and without cutting the size of the Policy Council – because the effect of that would simply be to weaken the parliamentary and scrutiny functions of the States while strengthening the executive function.
For that reason I intended to vote against Deputy Steere’s amendment. However, I was disappointed that so many of my colleagues didn’t even care to debate it. When another member makes a reasonable proposal, the least one can do is to listen to the their arguments and afford them the opportunity to persuade others of their merit. If one disagrees with the proposal, one needs to engage in debate and work hard to persuade others to vote against it. Blocking debate is an undemocratic option.
That’s my perspective in answer to your question, Jack.
Report abuse
Contrary to comments on the lines of ‘turkeys do not vote for Christmas’ I believe reducing the number of Deputies to 38, losing one from each electoral district, would get a lot of support from Deputies but only in the context of governmental reform. Otherwise you would end up with eleven members of the Policy Council, ten deputy Ministers and only seventeen ‘back-benchers’. That is not a balanced government.
Reduce the number of Departments to, say, seven and delegate the roles of three of the Policy Council sub-groups to these new ‘super-Departments’ and you would have a structure that could work with 38 Deputies.
As for IWV itself. Deputies have a loyalty to their electoral district and tend to take a great interest in matters that directly affect that district. The Vale Deputies in the state of Mont Cuet, St Peter Port Deputies in urban problems and the West Deputies in the airport expansion proposals, for instance. This is quite natural and States debates are probably better informed because of it. Indeed it could be said our electoral districts to some degree compensate for our lack of opposition parties.
I do not believe many Deputies stubbornly refuse to put the island’s best interests before those of their electoral district but even if they did they would always be in a minority in the Assembly. That’s the beauty of our system.
What would be unhealthy would be to move to a system where parochial loyalties were denied or suppressed under the thin veneer of Island Wide Voting whether that be for 10 or 45 Deputies.
Report abuse
So to all the people who favor Island wide voting you know what to do now. Join together and vote in people who can make good decisions and show some common sense and let’s get rid of some of these business men “Oops sorry I meant deputies”.
Report abuse
Ray.
Just in response to the 7000. SACC sent the IWV form to 22,000 homes, the return rate was very good in the local context, 3,676 were sent in. We were told during the debate that 1,000 people who responded were in favour of the status quo, does that mean then that only 2,676 from 22,000 were in favour of IWV. The 6,837 (not 7000) quoted by some SACC members was a reference to the number of boxes that were ticked on each form and interpreted as an individual response, when in fact one person could have responded on behalf of four. I will write to SACC and ask that they clarify a number of issues regarding the manner in which the stats were presented.
Report abuse
Shocking….
Report abuse
Matt F
Perhaps it’s time to rebalance Rule 13(6),the so called Webber/Gollop breaker, so that it is only put into effect if more than half the present Assembly supports it
There is another problem with reducing the numbers.’Government by letter’would only need 20 signatures if there were 38 members
Some deputies were wanting to propose even fewer members which would make it even easier for little private meetings and secret e-mails to become the normal method of governance to replace open debate
Then it wouldn’t matter if the district system was retained or if IWV was introduced as Joe Public would only have the fiction that often passes as a manifesto to rely on at voting time
Report abuse
Ray,
Re reform of 13(6): I have tried at least twice already, but shall have another go.
Report abuse
Just went through the Billet of June 2010 IWV second report.
The options and supporters of, were as follows.
10 parish deputies, one elected from each parish for a four year term and all others elected island wide for a four year term, 2,134. All deputies elected island wide for a four year term (the SACC proposal) 2,101. All deputies elected island wide for a four year term, with elections held every two years for half the number of deputies, 1,381.
All deputies elected in electoral districts (the status quo) 1,152.
So the option proposed by SACC was not the option supported by the majority of respondents.
Anyway we move on.
Report abuse
Barry Brehaut
…. unless you count the 2,101 FOR IWV (elected for a four year term) to the 1,381 FOR IWV (elected bi-annually)
Report abuse
And how many didn;t complete the survey because they didn’t support any of the proposals? Me for one.
This suggestion that 7,000 people supported IWV and that this means the majority of people supported SACCs proposals is, as Barry points out, seriouly flawed.
Report abuse
I listened and thought it a good debate. If sitting Deputies has been ultimately cynical as some would have us believe, then they would have voted for IWV thus ensuring their job as incumbents and precluding all other new talent getting a look in.
Would have made sense to thrash out all of the arguments but that didn’t happen which is disappointing, but I didn’t get the sense that that would have changed the outcome.
For those like that think IWV is the magic bullet for getting the ‘right decisions’ or removing certain Deputies that’s just wishful thinking.
IWV would create a political club, be a step towards executive government and ultimately mean an Assembly full of career politicians, ex-lawyers, retired medical professionals, Business Group Presidents and media whores.
Report abuse
rusmm
Then you should have returned your survey marked ‘none of the above’. It’s impossible to count the ‘against’ voters if they don’t bother to vote
I hope that everyone who wants IWV will state that on their 2012 ballot papers
Report abuse
Well said Neil and russm. Voices of the silent majority who weren’t lured into the trap of believing IWV to be the panacea of all our political ills.
Report abuse
Well- what a surprise! Deputies vote against island-wide voting, and don’t think we should reduce the numbers of deputies. This is a farce- why do THEY get to decide. There should be a referendum on such an important decision. Let the people decide. The current system is unfair- we have an island Minister who got less votes than some other candidates in other parishes who didn’t even get voted in- as there weren’t enough seats.
I am really distressed by the decisions made by the ‘circus of clowns ‘ who are running the show.
Report abuse
Lindsay de Laune – the idea of a referendum is not a bad one. I wonder though, would you be so vociferous in calling for one if IWV had got through?
Perhaps next year’s election should include a referendum on IWV and the number of deputies? At least that would go some way to settle the argument about what the public think as at the moment there is no concrete evidence for widespread support of IWV apart from a poorly responded to survey.
Report abuse
Nobody has commented on the fact that not one Deputy in the Western Parishes voted for IWV,Mr Sirett was not present. This fact definitely shows that Deputies do not listen to their constituents. Why vote?
Report abuse
Paul Le Page
That referendum sounds an excellent idea
Perhaps a separate box at the bottom of each district ballot paper,marked NOT PART OF THE BALLOT in which the voter can tick a yes,no or no preference,to IWV
That would stop me having to waste my vote with a spoilt paper
The thousands who never bother to vote at all would not then be able to claim to be the silent majority as they so often do
I hope somebody ‘upstairs’ takes this up as a serious proposition
PleP for Chief Minister
Report abuse
Ok so no Island wide voting.
Lets then consider a party system. This would at least give voters the opportunity of seeing a clear Island wide manefesto of the views of candidates. A political direction – that would be good.
This maybe abhorent to some but the present system is so flawed it beggars belief.
The current assembly will go down in history as one of the most inept ever. And we wonder why there is voter apathy?
Report abuse
This has proved to be a most interesting thread.
I concur with the stance set out by Matt F and Shane L above.
I voted for Dep Steere’s amendment to be considered but would have opposed reducing the number of Deputies unless the number of departments was also to be reduced… although I could readily envisage a reduction to 7 or 8 departments.
IWV supporters in the States were quite unable to demonstrate how thier proposals would actually improve the quality of governance.
Of similar significance is my concern that IWV would ultimately lead to a more organised form of politics in the Island… probably along factional lines initially but later towards more clearly defined political parties.
Report abuse
“Lets then consider a party system”
Once someone starts a party and then an opposing party appears you then have a party system. Governments can’t impose party systems, they evolve from people creating them.
“The current assembly will go down in history as one of the most inept ever.”
We were also the worst year ever at college; until the next year and then the year after that and then the year after that.
“although I could readily envisage a reduction to 7 or 8 departments.”
Seemed to be a number picked out of thin air and the wrong approach. IF there was a desire to reduce the executive then that can only be done after you have reduced the administration.
Report abuse
Ray – to be fair the referendum idea initially came from Lyndsey de Laune, so your post should read LdL for Chief Minister – although I’m happy to consider DCM ;-)
Neil – excellent point about the “worst ever” States. The current one is nearly always the worst, and in 20 years time people will be saying “it was far better in 2010.” We need to let history be the judge.
Report abuse
Did anyone else see Deputy Sirett on last night’s Jersey News? He was being asked about all the current road closures and he said that Guernsey’s roads were not built to take all the traffic that they have to deal with. Don’t know if I’m missing something here or not but is he not a member of the Environment Dept? He should be sorting out the traffic problem. Not making excuses for roadworks.
Report abuse
Paul
But you can’t have a GIRL as Chief Minister!
Hang on a sec .. just putting my bullet proof vest on … OK Take aim Fire
Report abuse
Neil,
“Governments can’t impose party systems, they evolve from people creating them.”
Actually, there usually is some kind of constitutional mechanism which gives rise to a party system. In the UK, the de facto requirement for prospective MPs to declare their party allegiance, and the power of the PM to form a government and appoint a cabinet means you have political parties, because without a party you cannot gain power.
In countries with Proportional Representation, political parties are more tightly embedded in the constitution, because the make-up of the parliament is determined by drawing names from the lists of candidates representing each party and the proportion of the electorate who vote for each party in the country as a whole.
Report abuse
I thought we already had ‘The useless amendment party’under the leadership of Gollop & Matthews
Report abuse
~Of course the States are not going to accept having less deputies,Are they going to give up their salaries. We should go back to having unpaid experienced businessmen to run the Island.
Report abuse
Scorpio55
How many oligarchs did you have in mind?
Report abuse
Scorpio 55
Goodness me I have never heard such a load of rubbish in all my life. Heaven forbid, all business men in the States, I wonder how many we would have left at the end of the four year term after the toys had been thrown out of the pram.
Report abuse
Scorpio55
Sorry to say but when it comes to trust, business men are pretty near the bottom of my list.
So no we should`nt.
Report abuse
valeite,
And here was me, thinking YOU were a troll!
Report abuse
The many IWV advocates have yet to bring forward a credible case in support of the notion that such an electoral arrangement would really lead to an improvement in the quality of governance or decision-making… or even in the calibre of our elected representatives.
Was I wrong to believe that these considerations represented a central plank in the IWV platform?
Report abuse
Sean McManus
It wouldn’t improve quality of decision making, if you mean quality being what is “right”, and not “how fast”. Nor could it improve quality of governance as this is a factor of the government and not the electorate.
But it would improve the implied democracy of having an election.
The current system is like having to look up to village elders, no matter what village they come from or how strongly you disagree with them; there is absolutely no recourse at the ballot box, or through any other means, to voice your disapproval.
One only has to look at some prominent ‘front benchers’ and the polarised reaction they cause to see that there could be a fairer way for the public to influence their status. Whether or not the “right” man wins, at least we could say we tried.
In fact, the more polarising a candidate is, the healthier the democracy would become – encouraging debate at the ballot box and not grumbling impotently down the pub (and on here).
The more anodyne candidates would seriously need to get their voices heard. Is a candidate necessarily imbued with political quality if they remain silent but fastidious? How would the public know if they were fastidious if they only get voted in by a few hundred votes in a parish?
No electoral reform would be smooth on implentation, but by shying away from a system that HAS to engage with the whole electorate, and so win enough of a public mandate to be able to vote in-house for ‘ministers’, will only alienate the young more.
Report abuse
Thank you for your response, Arnald.
I note your rematks in respect of governance and decision-making.
Our current “village elders” system is similar to many others. Most electors cannot select their ministers, only those standing in their own constituency.
Once elected, by whatever system, Deputies then vote for posts of responsibility from those nominated from among only those qualified to stand by dint of previous service. Thus, a less popular candidate who creeps in 45th via IVW could stand for senior office if they meet the criteria. You could so easily end up with the same faces as now.
Polarisation and party formation would probably be more likely for the reasons I gave in the debate last week.
Thanks for engaging in the debate and please feel free to call if you want further rationale. (Number in the ‘phone book.)
Report abuse
Well said Arnald
Report abuse
This island is not a democracy. It is a dictatorship.
Report abuse
Sean McManus
For an IWV system to work democratically, you need to have system that weighs the more popular with more chance at the ‘top’ positions. There should be automatic inclusion into the ‘ministerial’ elections for top places (with an opt out available – and so move to the next).
Similarly those that only got a ‘few’ votes should not be able to stand. But they can vote, and they have got an island wide mandate, however small (would it be comparable to a parish deputy ‘scraping in’ with a few hundred votes in that parish?).
Emphasis HAS to be put on who does best in an election. If that popular candidate does not feel they are suitable, fair enough, but to deny the politician that has worked the hardest and scored the most points amongst the public, should have the automatic right to be able to be rewarded.
It possibly could end up with the same faces, but then at least people couldn’t moan as much, and some direction in thinking and policy could be perceived at an island level.
At the moment it’s very difficult to use the phrase “you’ve got the government you voted for”. That’s an important thought – we could change the government next time.
Report abuse
When they’ve nothing else better to do maybe the Guerns should ease off their jackboots and look up the word ‘democracy’ in the dictionary.
Report abuse
another guernsey shambles
when does it stop
Report abuse
Coyote : done that; what next?
KK : I refer you to Coyote’s dictionary.
PB Falla : easy jibe; but not vey productive.
Arnald, yes you could have a party list system but that would entail political parties. I doubt if there’s much appetite for that in Guernsey.
You could also have a preferential weighting system but that works poorly with 30 plus candidates and tends to favour fringe folk. It is akin to the “Matt le Tissier’s second cousin’s son’s cat” system. I really don’t think it takes us forward.
Report abuse
Sean
But if you blokes really wanted to have change you could have made a start with cutting the number of deputies, that might have prompted some action about reforming the machinery of government.
otherwise its chicken and egg.
Sorry Sean but most of the current crop of deputies are really spineless, pompous, ignorant, thick , contemptible, weak, sheep – these arent jibes, just view of a disilluioned member of the electorate – i want a system that stops so many village idiots from getting elected.
How can that work?
Report abuse
Sean McManus
I couldn’t disagree more. The “I will vote for the nice man down the lane” is perpetuated by parochial elections. It serves a purpose, sure, but not at an island wide level.
Frankly, all politicians will make mistakes. I just want politcians to be accountable for their decisions. It can never be so if a minority, “my mate’s a good guy, to the Vale” ends up with the balance of power.
Your own argument falls over.
Report abuse
Jack
I voted in favour of allowing Deputy Steere’s proposal to be debated although you may recall that, under the current rules, it needs only one third of those voting to prevent consideration of an amendment which goes beyond the original proposition.
That said, I had intended to speak against the proposal to reduce the number of Deputies to 38, or to any other number plucked randomly from wherever. I would have spoken thus because I would wish the body of our parliament to be able to outvote the collective grouping of all ministers and their deputies should they ever to unite to seek to force unpopular measures through the States.
This means I would support a reduced number of Deputies only if we were to reduce the number of departments… although I do accept that it would be possible to do exactly that and SACC may have it on their collective “to do list”.
Your comments about “most of the current crop” are noted, Jack, but please accept that many of us are genuinely prepared to listen and to engage in public debate about ways of securing real improvements in the way government operates.
Report abuse
Arnald.
I can readily accept that all politicians, just like all non-politicians, may make mistakes.
It seems to me that your mistake is to assume that politicians in our community can only be accountable if they are elected by IWV. I cannot accept such a narrow notion of accountability.
However, to be constructive, I suggest that you might care to look up the Institute on Governance in Ottawa for a more fully developed consideration of political accountability. I would be genuinely surprised if you still feel that the argument “falls over” after you have had the opportunity to benefit from further exposure to that broader pool of experience.
Report abuse
Sean, so lets get this straight you voted for the debate so that you could oppose it! So that there would be a good 3 hours or so of drivel from you and your mates so that you could vote it out. Purely cos of the fear of 20 Ministers and deputy ministers – one observation and one question – i may have missed this but since when have policy council etc been united on anything. and the question why do we have 10 departments and ministers – we dont need 10 – where is the vision and oomph. the quality of deputies is so bloney low.
Report abuse
Jack, you’ve got it straight.
Those who wished to see a reduction in the number of Deputies felt it appropriate to have their proposal debated. I was entirely comfortable that such a debate should occur and quite willing to have it then; when most Deputies present had given the matter careful consideration after reading the Billet containing the SACC report.
You are quite free to describe the contents of a debate you haven’t heard as “drivel” but those who wish to see a more compact States might take a different view.
Now, I might well agree with you regarding the potential for the States to have fewer departments and so fewer ministers, Jack. That was part of the reason for supporting a debate on the subject.
The perceived unity of the Policy Council must be a subject for another occasion but I do take note of your observation.
As regards vision, “oomph” and quality; I am currently preparing a more careful consideration of that : but, dear Jack, I will not impose further “drivel” upon you now.
Report abuse