Monday, January 2, 2017

DEPUTY ANDREW 'POWERGATE' LEWIS - REFORM P.133/2016 PART 2

DEPUTY ANDREW 'POWERGATE' LEWIS 

DEPUTY ANDREW 'POWERGATE' LEWIS AND HIS P133/2016


TIME TO TRY AND  REFORM THE STATES OF JERSEY 


OPTION B WITH THE NEW SUPER DUPER PLUS ADDED ALONG SIDE IT 


MORE WORRYING STILL WE HAVE REFORM JERSEY RIDING SHOULDER TO SHOULDER WITH  DEPUTY LEWIS WHILST  FORGETTING ABOUT THE HISTORY OF OPTION B AND THE ASSASSINATION OF FORMER DEPUTY DANIEL WIMBERLEY'S  P.15/2011






Here we go again. Time to Reform the States of Jersey. The proposition P.133/2016 submitted by Deputy Andrew Lewis is laughable. He has basically re-submitted option B that was rejected by the States of Jersey on 16th July 2013 by 28 votes  to 21 with one abstention. This is the one time that the States of Jersey really got it right. Yes, they got a lot of stick across all media outlets and the like but they got it right. The referendum was flawed. They realised right at the very end and rejected it. The whole process was flawed. From the very moment Senator Bailhache assassinated P.15/2011 the reform process was set for failure. DON'T TRY AND RE-WRITE HISTORY. 

EVERYONE HAS FORGOTTEN ABOUT THE HISTORY OF P.15/2011 

1. Daniel Wimberley got P.15/2011 unanimously passed through the States of Jersey which was for an Independent Electoral Commission. No Politicians involved. 

2. Philip  Bailhache gets elected to the States of Jersey. Gets the Independent Electoral Commission kicked into the long grass. It now gets chaired by politicians, comes back with a totally flawed and ridiculous set of options for a referendum.

3. These Options get passed in the States and go to the public.. We are witnessing a shambles that Senator Bailhache should be ashamed about but won't be. The public go for Option B with a 26% turn out at the election. 

4. The States of Jersey finally see's sense and does what it has no option to do. REJECT OPTION B AND REJECT THE SHAMBLES CAUSED BY SENATOR BAILHACHE.  THEY GET SOMETHING RIGHT AT THE VERY END.

5. Option B returns.  This time Deputy Andrew 'Powergate' Lewis has cast a spell on Reform Jersey and has them nicely tucked up in bed with him for P.133/2016. What about the number 44 and the Constables ? What about the history boys? Don't you have any pride? How did Deputy Tadier and Southern vote last time out? Why this charge into the valley of death wearing a high visibility jackets with discarded Vote A Rosettes? It's all flawed boys. 


THAT LADIES AND GENTLEMAN IS THE BASIC HISTORY 


DEMOCRACY TERRORISTS LED BY SENATOR PHILIP BAILHACHE. 

IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU LISTEN TO THE INTERVIEW WITH DANIEL WIMBERLEY BELOW. HE EXPLAINS IT BRILLIANTLY. ALSO HIS PRESS RELEASE FROM MARCH 2012.


THESE CAN BE FOUND ON THE VFC BLOG HERE:




PRESS RELEASE From Former Deputy Wimberley.

DON’T TOUCH ELECTORAL COMMISSION URGES ITS FOUNDER
Daniel Wimberley, who first proposed the establishing of an Electoral Commission and steered it through the States, has today published an open letter urging anyone thinking of applying to serve on the Commission to think again.

“I myself have been approached to do just that, and I have decided – no.” he said.

In the letter he writes: “It is indeed seductive. Go on to the Commission, establish what are the real fundamentals of reform, have a real debate and real public consultation. You can start from a blank sheet of paper and get the fairest, most democratic and most effective system for Jersey. That after all was the original idea. But now I sadly have to point out - it is a lost cause. It is just not going to happen.

The letter points to three factors which prove that no one should apply to serve on the Commission: it is now controlled by States members, its terms of reference have been doctored to ensure that the public remain disempowered, and the independent experts to act as a check and balance on the process have been removed.

Mr. Wimberley said: “The purpose of the Commission has been completely subverted,” he said. “It has been stolen from the people. The idea was to have an open and honest look at how we elect our representatives, to bring a better democracy to the island. Now it is a plaything of the establishment. They will cement their power, and make the island less democratic. It is truly appalling..
“And so I urge anyone of integrity – do not get involved with this farce.”

ENDS


OPEN LETTER TO THE RESIDENTS OF JERSEY



My advice to anyone thinking of applying to serve on the Electoral Commission is – don’t.

It is indeed a seductive notion – go on to the Commission, establish what are the real fundamentals of reform,  have a real debate and real public consultation. You can start from a blank sheet of paper and get the fairest, most democratic and most effective system for Jersey.

That after all was the original idea. But now I sadly have to point out - it is a lost cause. It is just not going to happen.

Having States members on the Commission was extraordinary enough. At a stroke the States destroyed the independence of the Commission. The full-time politicians will control what happens.
But there have been two other two massive changes which have gone almost unnoticed.  There will be no outside experts, either on the Commission itself or sitting as an advisory panel. And the Terms of Reference - which were carefully written so that the Commission would look at all sides of the question and come up with a solution which could command the support of the public - have been dismantled.

How very sad. A Commission planned in good faith has been replaced by something completely different. And not worth working for.

Independent experts giving on-going advice and comment on the record would have been a check against vested interests taking over the process, and would have ensured fair play and best practice. That is exactly why we use them in other important and contentious areas, be it advice on our economy, the inquiry into the root causes of the death of Mrs. Rourke, and so on. But this vital check and balance has been removed by PPC.

And then the Terms of Reference.  First, PPC removed “voting systems.” But voting systems are a) a vital part of electoral reform, and b) precisely what determine how the range of views of the electorate gets to be reflected accurately in the assembly.

For example, in elections like the Senatorials where there are several seats, someone may vote for candidates A, B and C. But they may actually have clear preferences: they may want candidate A a lot, candidate B a bit less, and candidate C - well, he or she is better than nothing.

These preferences can and perhaps should influence the final result - especially in our non-party system - but any consideration of this has been excluded by PPC. So this is the first way they limited democracy.

Secondly, PPC have altered the terms of Reference to make sure that the Commission cannot actively seek out a way for islanders to have a say in who ends up as Ministers, via the votes they cast and their preferences.  After all, the most common complaint of residents about Jersey elections is this – “why vote – it does not make any difference.”

So once again, they took action to limit democracy. Why?

The point about representative democracy is that the people have the last word. They can remove a government that has failed or is acting blatantly in the interests of one group and not in the interests of everyone.

The changes to the Commission’s membership, the changes to the Terms of Reference, and the removal of any oversight from outside, serve precisely to ensure that the people do not get this power. The government we have now is here to stay.

The idea that the public could have preferences between candidates, the idea that the public should be able to remove the government, and the idea that the public should be able to decide on who they want in government – these ideas have been taken from the table by the powers-that-be.

There is a big sickness at the heart of Jersey when an attempt to bring about better democracy in the island is strangled at birth.
Job done. Democracy RIP. (END)




Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Journalist 

114 comments:

Anonymous said...

Question: Why is the man on the left of your photo smiling? Answer: He has got just a dopey little political wannabe to bugger an outstanding police chief for him and effectively shut down an inquiry in to decades of Establishment Jersey sponsored abuse. Well done. Not. Lewis has made his bed. Let him lie in it alone. Let him 'lie' in it too if wants. But not in the States. And not with misguided support from a political progressive.

Anonymous said...

Fully agree. Bailhache hijacked what was supposed to be an independent Commission. He said he wanted to keep constables but had an open mind. So he appointed a constable and a constable's son to help him. Then came up with 3 proposals, 2 of which involved keeping constables.

We should have had a referendum on what was the best way to elect representatives. Instead we had a skewed referendum which was a proxy vote on whether to keep constables. "Biased sham" and "hijack" are totally appropriate ways of describing what happened.




Deputy Sam Mézec said...

Thats two blogs you've done now about how awful P.133 is and so far you haven't actually given a single reason why it's a bad proposition.

If you can get this far without a single valid criticism, it's probably because you don't have any.

Cut this childish crap about casting spells and marching shoulder to shoulder. You know it's a lie and you're acting like the Establishment when you publish this sort of rubbish.



rico sorda said...

Who in their right mind thinks that the States can operate with 44 members and be less of a dictatorship than we already have? Instead of worrying about St Helier having equal representation how about asking the people of St Helier if they will ever come out and vote. Why should the Constables stay in their little fiefdom parishes and everybody else go super constituencies? That makes a mockery of the proposition. Reform of the States starts with the removal of the constables. To think that this can be achieved by first accepting the Lewis proposition is like cherry picking clothier.

Remember the history Sam. Remember what happened to P15/2011. They, the Establishment, assassinated it led by Philip Bailhache. Then they gave us the totally flawed options A, B and C.

Anonymous said...

Another good analysis of this useless proposal Rico.
Shame Deputy Andrew Lewis's new best buddy in the States cannot see it though.

Anonymous said...

'Cut this childish crap about casting spells and marching shoulder to shoulder.'

Yes that's a very professional response Deputy Mezec to a reasonable post, fine words from any Politician.
Then you wonder why many give up trying to engage with you.
Get away from Deputy Lewis before you turn into him.

Anonymous said...

Deputy Mezec says “Thats two blogs you've done now about how awful P.133 is and so far you haven't actually given a single reason why it's a bad proposition.” And “Cut this childish crap about casting spells and marching shoulder to shoulder. You know it's a lie and you're acting like the Establishment when you publish this sort of rubbish.”

Deputy have you actually read Daniel Wimberley’s open letter to the residents of Jersey? He (and Rico) spells out exactly what is wrong with this proposition so your first point where you accuse Rico of not giving a single reason as to why it is a bad proposition is false. Then you accuse Rico of acting like the Establishment when it is you who is ignoring the Establishment’s strangulation of democracy and it is you who is jumping into bed with an Establishment stooge.

I was a supporter of Reform Jersey up until now but you won’t be getting my vote at the next election because of your willingness to ignore the Establishment’s treachery and your jumping into bed with such an Establishment stooge.

Deputy Sam Mézec said...

Rico, you're just wrong on so many levels.

The States will get on fine with 44 members. Under P.133, 4 out of the 5 seats lost goes to St Ouen, St Mary, St John and St Lawrence. Under this system they'll have 5 Senators, whereas now they provide 5 Deputies and 4 Senators (Green, Gorst, Farnham and Maclean). When that election happens and we lose 4 of those characters, we won't even notice. The lost seats are for the button pushers and nodding dogs. Good riddance to them. The extra seats go to St Helier where their members actually bother doing work.

I would like to agree with you that reform should start with getting rid of the Constables, but I live in the real world Rico. ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. The majority of States Members today will vote against removing the Constables. So reforming the States has to start somewhere else. It's called pragmatism Rico. If you don't get pragmatism, then you're useless to politics. The problem is that you'd rather complain than make positive change.

Option A was not a flawed option. You were wrong when you said it in 2013 and you're wrong when you say it today. You just call it flawed because you can't see the forest for all the trees. Your instinct is to believe everything is terrible. It was a great option, and if P.133 is adopted, we'll get to an Option A type system in a matter of years.

The history is totally irrelevant. What the hell does the hijacking of the electoral commission have to do with the objective question of fact on whether the proposals in P.133 make our electoral system better or not?

It has nothing to do with it. It's either a good proposal on its merits or it isn't.

So far the only criticism you can muster is that it produces the wrong number of politicians. A fair argument to make, but it took you long enough to get to it and it doesn't justify how totally illogical and prejudiced the rest of your argument is.

Anonymous said...

Excellent interview with Mr Wimberley. Thank you for posting.

Anonymous said...

"The States will get on fine with 44 members"

Could Deputy Mezec point to what evidence this is based on.

Deputy Sam Mézec said...

Anonymous at 9:52am -

I've read the letter several times, I know Daniel Wimberley very well and always meet up for a chat whenever he's in the Island.

The letter has precisely sod all to do with whether the proposals in P.133 will make our electoral system better than the mess it currently is.

P.133 makes out electoral system simpler, it makes it fairer and it makes it more proportionate. It gives more power to St Helier voters, it takes power out of the hands of the overrepresented countryside and it takes power out of the hands of the mainstream media who pick their star candidates to promote, instead those candidates will actually have to knock on doors and meet people face to face. So far, no one has argued against any of that (because they can't).

Just because the process was flawed doesn't mean the conclusions weren't sound. I can't believe I even need to make that point, it's so blindingly obvious. Your argument is based completely on prejudice and has no objectivity behind it whatsoever.

Shut up with this "jumping into bed with an establishment stooge". It's complete bollocks and you and Rico look pathetic when you insinuate this. Grow up.

Nobody is doing more to oppose the establishment in Jersey today than Reform Jersey. We're backing P.133 because it's in line with our election manifesto, its in our constituents best interests and is the only viable way to get progress right now.

Your argument is - I don't like Andrew Lewis, therefore you should vote against anything he proposes, irrespective of whether it's a good proposition or not.

You're no better than the establishment if that's how you think. That's exactly what they do when progressives bring a proposition. They get people to vote against it just because of who is bringing it. Pathetic.

Deputy Sam Mézec said...

Anonymous at 10:51 -

I could easily name more than 5 members who if they disappeared off the face of the planet tomorrow nobody would even notice. If you're someone who pays even a slight amount of attention to local politics, then I'm pretty sure you can too.

Anonymous said...

'Nobody is doing more to oppose the establishment in Jersey today than Reform Jersey. We're backing P.133 because it's in line with our election manifesto'.

So why didn't Reform Jersey bring it in before Deputy Andrew Lewis because it's his baby?
You also contradict the Party because Lewis is Establishment and is grooming as many people as possible to help him seal his allegiance with a top job in the COM.
Otherwise he wouldn't pi** on Reform Jersey if the Party was on fire.

Anonymous said...


"Your argument is - I don't like Andrew Lewis, therefore you should vote against anything he proposes, irrespective of whether it's a good proposition or not."

I don't think Rico is saying that Sam. I might be wrong and he can speak for himself as we all know. You can't ignore the history behind this irrespective of Deputy Lewis. Does everyone have to agree with you Deputy.

Anonymous said...

Why are the Constables always protected beyond belief. Here we go again. You will never get rid of them if this rubbish gets passed through the States.

Anonymous said...

Said it before on VFC.
You got to hand it to Deputy Andrew Lewis for what he's pulled off here.
His proposal is not original or logical yet only months away from a report into historic child abuse that's going to be hell for him, he has managed to dupe a Political Party with strong views on historic child abuse to support him.
Genius.



rico sorda said...

If the process was flawed how can the conclusions be sound?

Where is the evidence for the States to run effectively with 44 members.?

And forgetting what i think about Lewis his proposition stinks.

Anonymous said...

Does Sam think Daniel Wimberley would support him on this Lewis "POWERGATE" proposition? Because my reading of Mr. Wimberley's letter tells me he would be with Rico and the majority of others on this one and would kick it into the long grass where it belongs. If Wimberley was still in the states he would have brought a vote of no confidence against Lewis by now and not jumped into bed with him.

Deputy Sam Mézec said...

"I don't think Rico is saying that Sam. I might be wrong and he can speak for himself as we all know. You can't ignore the history behind this irrespective of Deputy Lewis."

That is exactly what he's saying.

Only under interrogation do we eventually get that he has a problem with there being 44 States Members in this solution. He's entitled to an opinion there, but it is only opinion. It's not fact and many of us are certain we could easily get by with 44 members, so long as those 44 are distributed properly across the Island, which they will be under P.133.

His argument is that we have to vote against this because Andrew Lewis sacked Graham Power and because Philip Bailhache hijacked the Electoral Commission.

It's a terrible argument for anyone who cares about fact and logic.

We can argue the rights and wrongs of the sacking of Graham Power (and the CoI report coming out soon will hopefully shine some light on everything that happened) but it is totally irrelevant to whether P.133 is a good proposition or not.

Deputy Sam Mézec said...

"If the process was flawed how can the conclusions be sound?"

How are you even asking that question Rico? You do realise that sometimes the correct process arrives at unsound conclusions too, right?

"Where is the evidence for the States to run effectively with 44 members.?"

The advice of Dr Alan Renwick of the University of Reading which was provided to the Electoral Commission which produced a comparison of similar jurisdictions and how many politicians they had per population. The standard formula used around the world is to work out the cube root of the population. That gives us 45. It can give or a take a few either way without too many problems.

Many other small jurisdictions actually get by with far fewer than their population dictates. Gibraltar only has 17 MPs and their government does a much better job than ours.

This doesn't fit your preconceived narrative though, so I guess you'll just ignore it.

"And forgetting what i think about Lewis his proposition stinks."

But you can't forget what you think about Lewis. Your whole argument is based on him sacking Graham Power. It's an appalling argument and you should be doing better than this rubbish.

Anonymous said...

I want to echo and earlier comment.

"'Nobody is doing more to oppose the establishment in Jersey today than Reform Jersey. We're backing P.133 because it's in line with our election manifesto'.

So why didn't Reform Jersey bring it in before Deputy Andrew Lewis because it's his baby?
You also contradict the Party because Lewis is Establishment and is grooming as many people as possible to help him seal his allegiance with a top job in the COM.
Otherwise he wouldn't pi** on Reform Jersey if the Party was on fire."

Anonymous said...

I feel that had Reform Jersey supported the proposition because they believe it is a move in the right direction and not supported Andrew Lewis to the extent they have this would have been a better move on their part. That way they only support the proposition and not the proposer who may well come out very badly once the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry is out.

Tom Gruchy said...

9,000 people voted NO to Constables having an automatic seat in the States in the Referendum part of the last election. I ran that campaign virtually single handed and from my own pocket. Reform Jersey had boycotted the referendum at the outset and nobody else wanted to oppose the Establishment's YES campaign - so I volunteered to do it.
The 9,000 was achieved in a very low turnout of the electorate as usual where the Establishment had unlimited (and undeclared) money and resources to devote to supporting retention of the Constables in the States. Not only were 11 of the 12 Constables returned without facing contested elections in their parishes but the Establishment gained overwhelming support for their own Senators and Deputies throughout the Island too.

Presumably the same supporters of Establishment candidates largely voted YES for the Constables too and the " if only " argument applies just as much to the Constables as it does to removing the Establishment from inevitable control of the Jersey government.
"If only" more "progressive" supporters voted for "progressive" candidates then there would be many more Reform Jersey Deputies and Senators. Of course this "dream" equally applies to the Constables - if only more progressives voted then the Constables would and could be removed from the States.
In other words, the discussion about the Constables being or not being in the States is not a settled matter anymore than it is a settled matter that "progressives" cannot be elected in other constituencies as Deputies or Senators.
How it might become easier to elect "progressives" under the Deputy Lewis style Plan B which Reform Jersey is now supporting too is a total mystery to me. On the contrary is seems to be a formula to make it even more difficult to challenge the Establishment and of the course the Constables status quo will become even more difficult to oppose or change for many more years into the future.

The notion that the Constables matter should be left out now or from the next election as an issue must be a huge mistake. If their position is so unfair then it must be challenged. It cannot be left for another day and the Reform Jersey stance is simply absurd.

Clearly the role of the Constables can be added as an amendment proposition to the Lewis proposition or re-introduced into the public domain by others means but it is a democratic failing of such importance that it simply must not be ignored.

The current "lets just get on with it" attitude of the States has no place in the democratic process. Proper research, discussion and debate need to take place on such matters both within and outside the States and Reform Jersey are failing miserably if they do not promote such aims.

rico sorda said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rico sorda said...

Thanks Tom Gruchy my sentiments exactly. Thought i was going crazy for a second there.

Anonymous said...

"His argument is that we have to vote against this because Andrew Lewis sacked Graham Power and because Philip Bailhache hijacked the Electoral Commission."

looks like a very good starting point though.

Anonymous said...

Where is Monty and Southern? If this is Reform Jersey's stance why is it only Sam publicly supporting Andrew "POWERGATE" Lewis?

Deputy Sam Mézec said...

"I feel that had Reform Jersey supported the proposition because they believe it is a move in the right direction and not supported Andrew Lewis to the extent they have this would have been a better move on their part."

What on Earth are you talking about? We haven't supported Andrew Lewis at all. Our support has only ever been for the proposition, independent of whoever proposed it.

It's impossible to have an adult conversation on this subject when people insist on saying things which are just not true.

Anonymous said...

Deputy Mezec no matter what excuses you make for supporting Andrew Lewis the bitterness will remain until you withdraw it.

Anonymous said...

Is the Deputy saying that the establishment will be weakened by having 44members and super constituencies

Jill Gracia said...

I too have asked the question on several forums and directly to Sam as to what the positions of Monty and Geoff are in all this. Thus far - silence which I take it means it does not bode well. Time to come out of the woodwork one of you and give us an answer.

I have to say that I agree 100% with the comment above at 2.13PM. You will do yourself more harm than good Sam if you pursue this route.

Anonymous said...

Am i correct in thinking that Deputy Mezec is saying that Reform Jersey don't support the proposer of P133/2016 only what he is proposing.

Anonymous said...

"What on Earth are you talking about? We haven't supported Andrew Lewis at all. Our support has only ever been for the proposition, independent of whoever proposed it."

Good! You need to make that clearer to everyone in that case.

"The advice of Dr Alan Renwick of the University of Reading which was provided to the Electoral Commission which produced a comparison of similar jurisdictions and how many politicians they had per population. The standard formula used around the world is to work out the cube root of the population. That gives us 45. It can give or a take a few either way without too many problems."

With an increasing population and no solution being proposed to date, will 44 members remain at 44 members for long? Every approx 2,727 population increase will need and extra States member. Just a thought.

Deputy Sam Mézec said...

Tom Gruchy/ Mike Dun is talking complete nonsense again.

"Reform Jersey had boycotted the referendum at the outset and nobody else wanted to oppose the Establishment's YES campaign - so I volunteered to do it."

This is a lie and a rewriting of history.

Reform Jersey had a "vote no" logo on every one of our election manifestos, I spoke at every single public referendum debate (Mike spoke at one and was even sat next to me) and it was Christine Vibert who provided the material for the vote.je publications.

Mike has already been corrected on this, but continues to say it regardless of the fact he knows it's not true. That's called lying, so now you're with the Establishment tactics too then Mike.

Taking credit for 9,000 votes is such an incredible delusion of grandeur, but it's made even more embarrassing by the fact that it LOST. How is that something to brag about? Also, look at the recent byelection results. You got 73 votes, fewer than the guy who didn't even turn up to the hustings.

Here is the simple fact that you need to get your heads around - THE CURRENT STATES ASSEMBLY WILL NOT VOTE TO GET RID OF THE CONSTABLES.

There, I've even resorted to using capslock to make my point.

What do you not get about this simple statement?

Any reform proposition which is lodged that does not include the Constables will lose. There are 49 States Members and we need at least 25 to agree to get the Constables out, and we barely have 10. It is a settled matter for the duration of this assembly. I don't like that fact, but it is a fact and I prefer to live in the real world rather than the dreamland you seem to live in.

If a reform of the composition of the States is to be achieved for the next election, it has to keep the Constables, otherwise it will lose and we stick with the same as we have now and has failed to deliver change for decades.

I'm voting for a fairer system, a simpler system and a more proportionate system. You're standing up for a system which gives us 30% voter turn out rates, block votes for the Establishment and power in the hands of the media.

Deputy Sam Mézec said...

"Deputy Mezec no matter what excuses you make for supporting Andrew Lewis the bitterness will remain until you withdraw it."

I'm not supporting Andrew Lewis, I'm supporting P.133 irrespective of who brought it. Grow up.

"Is the Deputy saying that the establishment will be weakened by having 44members and super constituencies"

I think that this will be the case.

"Am i correct in thinking that Deputy Mezec is saying that Reform Jersey don't support the proposer of P133/2016 only what he is proposing."

Exactly.

Anonymous said...

Sam. Did you win the by election? I thought you lost it to a candidate who had already been thrown out by the electorate at the previous election!

Deputy Sam Mézec said...

Jill, what do you mean you've asked us questions and thus far had silence?

We discussed this back and forth over email, I gave you my explanation and you replied.

How is that silence?

Anonymous said...

Sums it up for me.

'Deputy Mezec no matter what excuses you make for supporting Andrew Lewis the bitterness will remain until you withdraw it.

January 3, 2017 at 2:13 PM'

Anonymous said...

You let yourself and your argument down Sam when you come on here insulting Tom Gruchy. He has been campaigning on Human Rights electoral reform and for the disabled since before you were even born. Show a little bit of respect will you?

Tom Gruchy said...

https://youtu.be/PIg8wm7kZwI

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:24.Sam I'm afraid is now will in the hands of the com as you can see anyone who disagrees with him are either childish or lies,s the usual com response looks like all those lunches with mr b are starting to pay off a Sam.nothing like making sure of your long term future in the states.

Deputy Sam Mézec said...

"Sums it up for me.

'Deputy Mezec no matter what excuses you make for supporting Andrew Lewis the bitterness will remain until you withdraw it."

No matter how many times people say it, I'm not supporting Andrew Lewis. I'm supporting P.133 because it's a good proposition. So far, no one has contributed a single valid people against P.133.

"You let yourself and your argument down Sam when you come on here insulting Tom Gruchy. He has been campaigning on Human Rights electoral reform and for the disabled since before you were even born. Show a little bit of respect will you?"

Mike lied in his post, claiming I wasn't involved in the referendum campaign when I was actually far more involved than him and that he somehow led it, when his contribution was minimal.

Because he's a human rights campaigner am I meant to stay silent when he publicly lies about me?

Anonymous said...

Deputy Sam Mezec is letting himself down and I do not like the way he has been rude to people on here today.
It is worrying.

Anonymous said...

Anybody with any political sense would be running a mile from Andrew Lewis before the care enquiry report comes out and shows him for the charlatan he is. Reform Jersey decide to jump in bed with him. Couldn't make it up.

Colin Machon said...

Andrew Lewis must be #iss@ng himself laughing at the Corbynite self immolation he has triggered. What is the problem with Reform agreeing with proposition .Some may disagree on the particular outcome but this is realpolitic .

The big issue is not to be sucked into the 'Big Game' playing out here which is in the longterm whitewash of the odious Lewis to place him in a powerful position to do bidding as a middle of the road everyman ,and collecting votes from all shades, or as here splitting the competition.

April is the cruelest month (it comes after the end of March).

Jill Gracia said...

You are correct Sam inasmuch as we have corresponded about this matter by e-mail and you responded very quickly which was much appreciated. However, in the latter part of my mail I did put the following -

'I am surprised and disappointed that we have heard from Monty and Geoff on this matter'. Probably wrongly, I thought you may know the answer to this question, but if that is not the case I have asked the question on social media as well and there has been no response from either yourself, Monty or Geoff.

It is clear that I am not the only one interested in a response to this question, so please could one of you provide us with an answer. Thanks

Anonymous said...

Pretty clear enough questions from Jill Gracia there Sam of which you seem to have ducked for some time. Let's have the answers on here please. What is Deputy Tadier's and Southern's thoughts on this proposition and equally important its proposer and why have they been so silent on this matter?

Anonymous said...

Sam's (repetitive) inflammatory language on this blog and on others is unhelpful and unnecessary IMO. There are other ways of disagreeing with people and Lewis and his cronies must be loving this infighting.
I confess confusion on parts of Tom Gruchy's statement @1:06pm:
"9,000 people voted NO to Constables....."  "YES campaign / [NO campaign?]"
Are we talking about Bailhanche's Referendum on Options A, B & C  (not  yes/no)?
Has this become confused with the later yes/no vote in the states as to whether to implement the Bailhanche's Referendum?

As Rico/Wimberley point out Bailhanche hijacked the INDEPENDENT Electoral Commission. The result of Bailhanche's hijacked Electoral Commission was three options A, B & C which ALL maintained the establishment's grip (thought admittedly B was the least bad)

I suspect that the establishment have put some time into discovering how to play Sam and my suspicion is that he is being played.

Perceived self interest is a powerful tool. If we cast our minds back to the Bailhanche's A B C Referendum, Sam enthusiastically engaged with the product of it's digestion and was probably the lead campaigner for option A, complete with a significant campaign budget.
Tempting for a young politician (rightly) keen on raising his profile.

At the time I was deeply concerned. If you play in a rigged game you are near bound to lose, and by consenting to participate you risk validating the result (and the other team -in this case A. Lewis.)

It is a difficult call to make; whether to play their game and lose or to stand on the sidelines and start a slow clap.

Sam will be criticised by some for playing "resurrect option/rehabilitate Lewis"

Syvret was criticised by some for not playing "ignore the flaws in the CoI"

Deputy Sam Mézec said...

Hi Jill.

Geoff isn't on social media so he wouldn't see anything posted on there. I'm sure if you directly contacted Monty he'd be happy to explain in his own words his position.

Monty, Geoff and I agree that P.133 is not our ideal solution (we remain committed to one category of States Member in equal sized constituencies), but of everything on the table, it is probably the most viable one we can hope for to get a bit of progress instead of continuing on with the decades of inaction we've had so far.

As the party chairman I tend to act as spokesperson when we reach decisions as a party like this, because it doesn't really make sense for our three deputies to fight over airtime when we can just delegate it to one of us. We are united on this, but they are focused on other work so won't be as vocal on this as I am. Monty is in the news today calling for the requirement for election candidates to be British citizens to be scrapped and I totally agree with him, but won't seek to act as spokesperson when Monty is already getting on with it.

We're tried to engage with our membership on this issue more than we have on any subject for a while now. We've spoken to party members at two social events last year, we've asked members to email their thoughts and we held a meeting specifically on this subject. Almost everyone we have spoken to has been positive about this, not because they think it's perfect (because no one does) but because everyone is so fed up of inaction and we just want progress, even if it's just a small step in the right direction.

There have so far been two members who have contacted me to say they disagree. That's fine. Obviously I'm always upset when there isn't complete unanimity in the party, but that's democracy for you! I've spoken to both of those members and tried to offer my reassurance, and I'm happy to do that with any party member who disagrees with us on anything.

We had a lot more members disagree with us on the recent hospital debate than we have had with P.133. We respected their view, but went with the majority.

I accept that not everyone will believe that P.133 is the right way forward, for various reasons. I respect that opinion and hope that we're all still united in the end vision we have for a proper democracy.

What is really unhelpful though is people saying we are jumping into bed with Andrew Lewis. We just aren't. There is no deal, he hasn't met with the party and he hasn't lobbied the party. We are not teaming up with him. There is no alliance.

We're just voting objectively on a proposition, irrespective of who lodged it.

I'd support it with just as much enthusiasm if any other States Member lodged it.

Anonymous said...

My view on this?

Never. Trust. Andrew. Lewis.

Never forget what he did to Graham Power.

Anonymous said...

Lets hope this proposal fails because if Lewis wins it will be a massive kick in the face for all.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

VFC All Time Top Ten most hit BLOGS.

Deputy Sam Mézec said...

And what about the merits or demerits of P.133?

Anonymous said...

Said on the news this morning that Reform Jersey are fully supportive of Deputy Andrew Lewis so they have made up their minds.

Anonymous said...

Jersey's only politicial party says it supports fresh calls for government reform.

A proposition has been lodged to use the result of the island's 2013 referendum, which was never implemented, and reduce the number of politicians in the States to 32 Senators and 12 Constables.

It would also see the island's voting districts change to six large constituencies.

Members of Reform Jersey say they will back Deputy Andrew Lewis' proposition, despite thinking it 'falls short' of what they would ideally like to see.
Now is a sensible time to implement the result of the 2013 referendum, with the added protection for St Helier voters, and take a significant step forward to improve our electoral system. States Members have wrangled with this issue for far too long and it is time for members to put aside their own self-interest and vote to implement what the public voted for in 2013. We can’t continue with the current broken system which the public have no confidence in.

– DEPUTY SAM MÉZEC, REFORM JERSEY PARTY CHAIRMAN

rico sorda said...

From P133./16

(c) that in an Assembly of 44 members, the maximum number of Ministers and Assistant Ministers shall be 19;

So,add in your 12 or 10 constables on top of the Collective responsibility and good luck. The Establishment won't be defeated because of super constituencies. How many did Reform get elected at the last election and how many candidates do they have for the next one?

Anonymous said...

Should read deputy sam mezec who is number 2 in reform jersey under party chairman Andrew Lewis will unquestionably agree with he's proposition to fully support to keep constables in the states therefore safe guarding he's own place within the states establishment.

Deputy Sam Mézec said...

"Said on the news this morning that Reform Jersey are fully supportive of Deputy Andrew Lewis so they have made up their minds."

Then the media is talking bollocks. Christ, you people rant about how terrible the media are, then totally fall for it when

The press release sent to the media makes no reference whatsoever to the person bringing the proposition. If the media reference him, that was their prerogative, not mine.

"Should read deputy sam mezec who is number 2 in reform jersey under party chairman Andrew Lewis will unquestionably agree with he's proposition to fully support to keep constables in the states therefore safe guarding he's own place within the states establishment."

If you believe this, then you're an idiot. Simple as that.

Deputy Sam Mézec said...

"So,add in your 12 or 10 constables on top of the Collective responsibility and good luck. The Establishment won't be defeated because of super constituencies. How many did Reform get elected at the last election and how many candidates do they have for the next one?"

The 32 Senators will be elected fairly and democratically. So progressives will make a greater proportion of those Senators than they do the current Senators and Deputies.

The right-wingers will not have enough support amongst those 32 to govern by themselves.

They would either need to include the Constables in their pool of ministers and assistant ministers (they will NOT have a voting block of 29 or whatever), or they would need a coalition with progressives in government, meaning we'd get a more representative government anyway.

Those are the facts Rico. But I guess nothing will ever make you happy because complaining and conspiracy theories are more fun, right?

rico sorda said...

I was asked today if I had a problem or a falling out with Deputy Mezec. No is the answer to both. The fact that I don't agree with what Reform Jersey are doing is just an opinion that I voice on my blog. I treat what they say in the exact same way as the establishment or anyone else. I have to stay true to myself.

I didn't agree with Sam going for Senator in the by-election and I don't agree with P133/16 or the alliance with Lewis..

History will record it Deputy Tadier.

Anonymous said...

What an unfortunate carry on. I would love to know what the hugely missed Progressives (with a capital P) of recent years think about this? Would the Pitmans support this? Would Le Herissier? Would Syvret? Would Duhammel? We know what Wimberley thinks and it is obviously a big NO! Would any of these sort of people joining Reform after they supported a proposal brought by Judas himself? The history is too big and disgusting to put aside even for the usually valid point of pragmatism.

Deputy Sam Mezec said...

Deputy Sam Mézec has left a new comment on your post "DEPUTY ANDREW 'POWERGATE' LEWIS - REFORM P.133/201...":

"So,add in your 12 or 10 constables on top of the Collective responsibility and good luck. The Establishment won't be defeated because of super constituencies. How many did Reform get elected at the last election and how many candidates do they have for the next one?"

The 32 Senators will be elected fairly and democratically. So progressives will make a greater proportion of those Senators than they do the current Senators and Deputies.

The right-wingers will not have enough support amongst those 32 to govern by themselves.

They would either need to include the Constables in their pool of ministers and assistant ministers (they will NOT have a voting block of 29 or whatever), or they would need a coalition with progressives in government, meaning we'd get a more representative government anyway.

Those are the facts Rico. But I guess nothing will ever make you happy because complaining and conspiracy theories are more fun, right?


Had to publish like this. Glitch with my blog. Rico

Anonymous said...

"The history is too big and disgusting to put aside even for the usually valid point of pragmatism."
Indeed. Accepting propositions from A Lewis is a little like accepting a used bathroom suite from Ian Huntley. Some things will never wash clean.

Some readers may think this comparison is too strong. I consider it to be valid.
Whilst we do not know for certain whether or not children were killed at HDLG or on "yachting treats", we do know that scores of the abused have met early deaths and suicide.

Lewis has oh-so-willingly become a part of this crime. If there is no way for him to make amends he will take it to his grave, or even beyond.

That is my opinion. Members or leaders of RJ are entitled to their opinion.

Anonymous said...

"Those are the facts Rico." .......no they are opinions not facts.

"But I guess nothing will ever make you happy because complaining and conspiracy theories are more fun, right? " .....WTF! ---Dear Mr. Mezec, I hope that @3:07 is someone else pretending to be you.

???

Deputy Sam Mézec said...

"I didn't agree with Sam going for Senator in the by-election and I don't agree with P133/16 or the alliance with Lewis.."

There is no alliance with Lewis Rico. This is my problem with you right now. You're just lying.

Anonymous said...

Can't Sam see he is being played like a fiddle? Here's a quote from Sam "The press release sent to the media makes no reference whatsoever to the person bringing the proposition. If the media reference him, that was their prerogative, not mine."

The media is aligning you with Lewis as an ally. You are in bed with Lewis and the media will be making a big song and dance about this as often as they can because you will be helping them and Lewis get some credibility before they start covering up for him when the care Enquiry publishes its report. You are being played like a fiddle Sam and you should walk away from anything which has Andrew Lewis involved. Bring your own proposition and get away from Lewis. You didn't mention Andrew Lewis in your press release but the media did. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE SAM.

Anonymous said...

I have always been a supporter of Sam Mezec and Reform, and I hear what he says regarding supporting a good proposition despite the politician presenting it. However Daniel Wimberleys letter and interview shine more light on the issue.Daniel is one of the most intelligent men I have ever met and also a person of great integrity. if he is against this proposition then so am I, Nuffield said.

Anonymous said...

Deputy Sam Mezec cannot see he is helping Deputy Andrew Lewis to cushion the blow from the pending Jersey Care Inquiry Report. When that Report comes out and if it is predictably damming, then it will not look good for Reform Jersey for suckering up to Lewis.

Anonymous said...

Deputy Mezec have you had any dealings or email conversations with Deputy Lewis concerning this proposition?

Anonymous said...

You are wasting your time Rico. -

'Anonymous 4 January 2017 at 16:37
Listen to Rico and get away from Lewis Sam before its too late.

Reply

Deputy Sam Mézec 4 January 2017 at 16:49
No. Rico is talking out of his backside.'

Anonymous said...

Sam is lost anyone who disagrees with him are lying or idiots except Sam and he's new found best bed buddy Andrew Lewis give it up Sam you can't hide behind reform anymore your there now in with the com.

Deputy Sam Mézec said...

Here's my question to you all - if Andrew Lewis lodges a proposition tomorrow to increase the minimum wage by £1 an hour, are Reform Jersey expected to vote against it on the basis that Lewis sacked Graham Power?

Be careful how you answer that. There is a correct answer.

Anonymous said...

Finally taking his place in the establishment party so he can get somewhere.

voiceforchildren said...

Sam.

For the record Andrew Lewis didn't "sack" the former Chief Police Officer Graham QPM. He (possibly illegally) "suspended" him. He done this after inviting him to a meeting, not informing him it was a "suspension" meeting. Had Andrew Lewis informed the former Police Chief that the meeting was to be a suspension meeting then Mr. Power would have been entitled to have representation and would, or should, have been given time to prepare and defend the allegations made against him. Andrew Lewis duped Graham Power and then went on to mislead the States. It was not a "sacking" it was a possibly illegal suspension that basically closed down a child abuse investigation.

Anonymous said...

Does anybody else get the feeling that Andrew Lewis is calling all the shots?

Anonymous said...

Yes there is it's get your head out of Lewis backside stop trying to justify the fact that you're in bed with Lewis.because what you're saying if its a good proposition then it should not matter were it comes from.if it was adolf hitler,s you would agree with it really.

Deputy Sam Mézec said...

"Yes there is it's get your head out of Lewis backside stop trying to justify the fact that you're in bed with Lewis.because what you're saying if its a good proposition then it should not matter were it comes from.if it was adolf hitler,s you would agree with it really."

With idiotic contributions like this, it will never be possible to have an adult conversation on this subject.

Anonymous said...

There you go again Sam if you don't agree with me you're an idiot or lying or both you're like a baby throwing its toys out the pram when people don't go with what you say if you only see idiots and layers stop looking in the mirror go out into the real world get a proper job for a while get life experience then come back when you've grown a pair.

Anonymous said...

Sam if you carry on treating the people who support you like idiots then they will drop like flies.

rico sorda said...

Sam, did you have any email dealings or conversations with Deputy Lewis regarding P133/2016. Did he ask you for assistance with any part of it? Yes or No

rico sorda said...

Conspiracy theories Sam. What are my conspiracy theories exactly?

Anonymous said...

Deputy Mezec over 20 people claimed on Facebook during last years by-elections that you had blocked them for asking questions, and it is obvious you had from some of your responses on here.
When are you going to get off your high horse and understand that you work for the people as they employ you, and your friendship with Deputy Andrew Lewis is a serious issue.

Jill Gracia said...

I am saddened Sam that you are still of the opinion that, because this is a 'good' proposition it means you have to work in tandem with Andrew Lewis. I have taken on board your reasoning, and for my part you have replied to my concerns.

It is quite obvious that a large number of people feel he is an odius man and clearly he is not popular. Both yourself and Monty if I recall, sat through part of one day of the hearing at the IJCI at which he gave evidence. I and others sat through the whole damned jolly lot and it made for most unpleasant listening, something we will never forget, and his behaviour was not in any way conducent to that of a man who is a representative of the people in the States. Arrogant, dismissive, cocky and bordering on the down right rude to the excellent Counsel and the panel. He should have manned up and come clean, moreso as Graham Power was sitting there as a member of the public. Did AL feel any shame - clearly not.

Sam, and Reform - it is often said that we are judged by the company we keep and I think this could apply here. Time will tell, but it would be a shame to see such promise rest on your stubborness!

Deputy Sam Mézec said...

"Deputy Sam Mezec cannot see he is helping Deputy Andrew Lewis to cushion the blow from the pending Jersey Care Inquiry Report. When that Report comes out and if it is predictably damming, then it will not look good for Reform Jersey for suckering up to Lewis."

When the Care Inquiry Report comes out, Reform Jersey will be shouting from the rooftops about all of the issues it highlights. You'll all look pretty stupid then.

Deputy Sam Mézec said...

"Sam, did you have any email dealings or conversations with Deputy Lewis regarding P133/2016. Did he ask you for assistance with any part of it? Yes or No"

I've already answered this on the VfC blog. Of course I've spoken to him. I talk to every States Member from time to time. It's part of the job. I even occasionally have to talk to Philip Bailhache. There is nothing unusual about that and every other member is the same, including Deputy Tadier and Deputy Higgins.

He approached me at the end of a Parish meeting we both attended to tell me he planned to lodge this proposition. I later emailed him the tables and statistics he then used in the report to P.133.

There is no deal, there is no agreement, there is no "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" arrangement. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, but you are pursuing a dishonest narrative which is contradictory to everything this blog used to stand for. That's the conspiracy theory.

Deputy Sam Mézec said...

Jill,

I'm really sorry you feel that way, but I feel like I've said this a million times and no one is listening - Reform Jersey has no agreement/ deal/ arrangement with him. We just don't. Why shouldn't I be stubborn when I'm telling the truth and people are saying things about us which are just not true? I thought politicians were meant to be honest.

No one has answered my question - if Deputy Lewis lodges a proposition to raise the minimum wage by £1 an hour, should I vote against it because it is him who lodges it, despite it being my key manifesto promise that I'd support raising the minimum wage? My constituents would be furious with me if I voted against something which was in their interests just because of who lodged it, wouldn't they?

You are right that I was there during those particular hearings at the IJCI, and I give you my word that when the report comes out and calls out particular individuals for having directly or indirectly harmed children, or for scuppering the child abuse investigation, Reform Jersey will be the first to call for those people to lose their jobs and see justice.

When the report comes out, we will not be silent and we will not hide in the shadows waiting for it all blow over. We will be at the forefront of calling for justice, no matter who finds it uncomfortable.

I worked with Philip Ozouf on the gay marriage proposition, then signed a motion of no confidence in him as Treasury Minister just a few weeks later.

rico sorda said...

Sounds pretty cosy to me but that's for you to deal with.. I call it how I see it Sam. The fact that RJ couldn't come with their own Reform proposition and had to back Deputy 'Powergate' Lewis because you were afraid of defeat is again quite sad it hasn't put Geoff off these past 20yrs.. What's the rush. I don't think it will get passed but who knows.. I think P133/2016 is flawed and you yourself have said its not perfect. Is that what its come to. Reform for a bit of reform sake and stuff the consequences..

Deputy Sam Mézec said...

"Sam, did you have any email dealings or conversations with Deputy Lewis regarding P133/2016. Did he ask you for assistance with any part of it? Yes or No"

I've already answered this on the VfC blog. I speak to EVERY States Member from time to time. It's part of the job. Of course I have spoken to him about this proposition. I've also spoken to Philip Bailhache, Ian Gorst, Philip Ozouf, Mike Higgins, Rod Bryans, Simon Crowcroft, Steve Luce and others.

The States is a "parliament". "Parler" is French for "to talk". That's what we do. Mike Higgins and Monty Tadier do exactly the same. I've seen Mike talking to Andrew Lewis several times in the tea room. Will you interrogate him too for just doing his job?

rico sorda said...

Also, you must also be open to s bit of criticism. Its not always positive. Its how you react that counts. Sometimes it's worth stepping back and having a little think. I support you in probably 90% of what you do but getting cosy with Lewis and his crap proposition isn't one of them and I'm voicing that. And Monty, who has suddenly turned into Lord Lucan, should know better.

Deputy Sam Mézec said...

"The fact that RJ couldn't come with their own Reform proposition and had to back Deputy 'Powergate' Lewis"

Actually I've been working on the PPC sub-committee on reform for two years on this very subject and Deputy Lewis lodged his proposition before that sub-committee had completed it's work. So we have been forced by circumstance to be reactive, instead of proactive.

"Is that what its come to. Reform for a bit of reform sake and stuff the consequences.."

Again, I've asked this question several times and no one has provided me with an answer - what do you propose instead?

It must meet two criteria -

1) it must be better than the current system.
2) it must stand a chance of being adopted by the States.

If you can come up with something that meets both of those criteria, I will lodge it tomorrow.

Let me know.

Insider said...

Rico,
Andrew Lewis believes he has won this proposal because Reform Jersey, with others he has managed to groom, are behind him.
He's done the numbers and told people it's in the bag.

rico sorda said...

Thee you go.

You and P.A.C working on it for 2years and Lewis gets it sorted 2 weeks. What's that all about? Like I said. A bit of alleged Reform for Reform sake.. The base of the cake is rotten a strawberry on top won't help.

rico sorda said...

I meant PPC above

Anonymous said...

Lewis gets all the glory for it.
****s on Reform Jersey afterwards and goes into the 2018 elections grinning like the Cheshire Cat.

Deputy Sam Mézec said...

Rico, I'm FINE with criticism. I get it all the time. No problem. That's democracy. Good.

The problem I have is that you're making stuff up. Why can't I correct you when you say things which are not true without being told I'm just not reacting to criticism properly? I don't think it is unreasonable to expect political commentators to stick to the truth.

I don't mind you thinking P.133 is a bad proposition. I don't agree with you, but that is an entirely legitimate opinion. But it's taken you interrogation on two blog posts to actually get a vaguely valid reason for why it's a bad proposition.

There are no backroom dodgy deals. Reform Jersey has no arrangement with Andrew Lewis at all. We are not supporting P.133 in return for anything. It's not our style. We look at a proposition on it's merits, irrespective of anything other than the propositions content, and we've reached an independent conclusion that P.133 is in line with our election manifesto, so we should keep our promise to the public and vote accordingly.

Deputy Sam Mézec said...

In fairness Rico, Deputy Lewis's proposition is based on the work done in 2013, which included spending a hundred grand on a massive consultation, expert advice and a referendum. It's not back of a fag packet stuff.

martin said...

The arrogance of deputy mezec goes beyond belief after supporting reform and after reading he's comments I will never support reform again and now none of my family and friends will either it's as other people are saying he's just a boy with no real life experience stand down deputy it is my belief you have lost so much support over this you will do more harm then good to the party.

rico sorda said...

In fairness Sam its based on a hijacked Electoral Commission and its findings. The cake is rotten. I don't think you have done any deal with Lewis. I have struggled to find any positive comments about P133/2016 and the ones who are in favor say something is better than nothing with no idea about the something. I just expected a lot more from Reform Jersey.

Anonymous said...

There is no compromise on this.
I don't like the exchanges on here and the VFC blog over the past weeks and expected much more professionalism from Deputy Sam Mezec. Calling people names for having their own views only creates bitterness and I wish he would cease doing this immediately.
That aside this proposal is not good enough and with the Demon Andrew Lewis thrown in its repugnant.
I hope P133/2016 is thrown out.

Anonymous said...

Oh Sam what are you doing, even associating with Lewis? have you no principles? If you continue, then you loose any future votes from me.

Anonymous said...

This situation was made by Lewis although I doubt Lewis thought it up himself.
Neither Sam/RJ nor the critics (above) created this mess, but I suspect the establishment are chuckling now. Only in Jersey would the progressives be falling apart because a proven liar, a key player in Jersey's worst 21st C cover-up, is putting forward an outdated proposition that only marginally improves democracy whilst further embedding an out-dated, patriarchal model. If P133 is passed, Jersey moves one measly step towards progress. One small step is better than none....
But with so many more steps are required- a separation of powers, rule of law, law office reform, eradication of corruption, the Dean's seat, greater democracy, progressive policies etc., perhaps we're better remaining with the Option C status quo and securing a better deal with many 'normal in the world' steps gained in one go? We know the MORI polls show that the desire for the Constables to automatically sit in the SoJ is dying with the older folk. Perhaps this is something similar to the Brexit outcome which divided the younger / progressive voters from the older / others, conservatives and far right.
IMO......
Sam/RJ and his critics (above) are BOTH right. Both 'sides' have VERY VALID arguments.

Had this been proposed by a lefty or moderate, or even a fence sitter, how would the debate be reading now? I'm sure less divisive and more mature.

We must respect each other, we have common ground, we can agree to differ.

We must avoid disrespectful comments which deflect and waste energy.

I wish we would seize on this appalling situation to gain more ground. Put our collective energy into crystallizing the visions and the game plan that we essentially want. I don't think any of us actually want this half-cocked, desperate proposition by a fraudulent man. Let's use this division to focus to get what we really want.

May be there is an amendment series, a tactical withdrawal, a new press release, a movement, a revolution, anything we can seize for greater and perhaps different gains.

Anonymous said...

I don't know whether the Establishment are chuckling at this story because there is not much comment about it. The well known Witch is doing her usual hate posts but barely anybody else has said anything about P133/2016 or it's implications for reform. Then again Lewis is not liked by many on the Right either...

Anonymous said...

Who is the Witch?

Deputy Sam Mézec said...

"In fairness Sam its based on a hijacked Electoral Commission and its findings. The cake is rotten. I don't think you have done any deal with Lewis. I have struggled to find any positive comments about P133/2016 and the ones who are in favor say something is better than nothing with no idea about the something. I just expected a lot more from Reform Jersey."

It's nice that you've finally now admitted that there is no RJ/AL alliance or deal. It would have been better if you could have done it from the start though given how your blog has helped feed a dangerous and inaccurate myth.

Reform Jersey are perfectly clear about what the next step is.

We support one category of States Member elected in equal sized constituencies and that will be our policy at the next election. That means removing the Constables and redistributing their seats amongst the districts to provide equal representation. It's not difficult.

Anonymous said...

I hope you don't mind me leaving this comment here Rico but Sam Mezec is slagging you off on his blog calling you a liar. I wrote a comment to his blog which he won't publish because he knows the man he is supporting is a liar but wants others to think it's you who is the liar.

"You have called Rico a liar. Do you see Andrew Lewis as a liar? If so why haven't you called him one? If you don't believe Lewis is a liar then say that. There is more than enough evidence to show who is the liar and who has brought those lies to light. Is Andrew Lewis a liar - in your opinion - or isn't he?"

Anonymous said...

Since Sam won't even publish the comment on his own blog and you have published it on yours Rico maybe Sam will answer the question on here?

Anonymous said...

Sam, you need to mature a little more.
You've done well over the past 3 years and the by election result was an achievement, even though you did spend a lot of money to get there. But you have to start respecting people with views that differ to your own in a mature way. The insults you've been using online are childish, toy throwing even and I'm afraid you are showing a lot of immaturity.

Is the party over? said...

Recent indications are that Sam Mezec is not up to the job

A party leader needs to be a statesman and bring people together.

This looks like a schoolyard spat and I can see it just getting worse as Sam has dug himself into a hole that he is not man enough or not clever enough to back out of.

If Sam was more experienced and media savy this would not have happened.

What a shame. Will he learn and learn fast enough?
I am no longer sure that Reform Jersey is a part of the future.

Anonymous said...

To be fair to Sam, RJ are not just one person, but are a democratic organisation.Perhaps Sam it would help if you could tell us what the full details of the members vote was in favour of supporting the proposition ?

Deputy Sam Mézec said...

"Sam, you need to mature a little more.
You've done well over the past 3 years and the by election result was an achievement, even though you did spend a lot of money to get there. But you have to start respecting people with views that differ to your own in a mature way. The insults you've been using online are childish, toy throwing even and I'm afraid you are showing a lot of immaturity."

I have no respect for these sorts of comments.

I am being lied about so I'm standing up for myself. Why don't you direct these petulant comments about maturity to people who are deliberately lying to advance their argument?

Is this the state of modern politics in Jersey? Anonymous idiots on the internet can lie about a politician, then when that politician corrects the record he is somehow the immature one?

Give me a break.

Deputy Sam Mézec said...

"If Sam was more experienced and media savy this would not have happened."

What on earth are you talking about? People are choosing of their own volition to lie about me, so I'm calling them liars. What does my experience with the media have to do with people making that choice to contribute such slime to political discourse?

Why are you taking the side of liars?

Jill Gracia said...

Rather than call people outright liars Sam, it may be preferable to temper your responses (if you have to carry on responding which is getting nowhere). Why not say someone is being economical with the truth or are not in possession of the full facts. To keep calling people liars sounds very immature and it may be easier to agree to disagree than churn up the same old, same as as a certain ex-Senator does. It does get boring. Not having a dig, but saying it as I see it.

I would however be interested if you could answer the question below that a previous commentor asked -
'Perhaps Sam it would help if you could tell us what the full details of the members vote was in favour of supporting the proposition' ?

Thanks

Anonymous said...

Sam because of your attitude problem and petulant toy throwing you have lost my support.
Good luck because you are going to need it.

Unlikely bedfellows? said...

"If Sam was more experienced and media savvy this would not have happened."

Sam says @1:50pm "What on earth are you talking about? ....etc. ....lie about me,....liars etc. etc."

OK, please let me help you out Sam

A dictionary definition of "Savvy" = shrewdness and practical knowledge; the ability to make good judgements

"Media Savvy" = the above shrewdness relating to communications and media:
i.e. understanding how information will be received, how it might be reported, how it will be spun.

---------------------------------------

So stop for a moment Sam.
You are calling your supporters and even respected bloggers liars and worse.
Is your communications strategy and style working for you or against you in this instance???

I would suggest not and the comments on the blogs etc. would tend to confirm this.
Likely a bit of this is trolling but the majority is people honestly expressing reasonable opinions.

Jill Gracia above recommends you use more statesman like language e.g.
your "liars" are "being economical with the truth" [still insulting IMO] or
"are not in possession of the full facts" [well, who is?]

Rather than being "liars" perhaps you could say that the people who do not interpret the facts in the way that you would like are "mistaken".
that would be far less emotive and more statesman like language.

Leaving aside for the moment the merits/lack of merits of p.133 we are of the understanding that you
A. had (informal?) discussions with Lewis prior to the proposition being finalised
and
B. even provided Lewis with data/analysis which he included in p.133

Are those the facts Mr.Mezec, or are we mistaken?