Saturday, January 28, 2017

FORMER DEPUTY DANIEL WIMBERLEY SHARES SOME THOUGHTS ON P133/2016




FORMER DEPUTY DANIEL WIMBERLEY 


DANIEL RESPONDS TO MY BLOG POSTINGS ON P133/2016 AND MY TAKE  ON THE DEPUTY LEWIS / REFORM JERSEY LOVE IN. 


I HAVE A LOT OF TIME AND RESPECT FOR DANIEL.


DON'T AGREE WITH ALL THAT HE SAY'S BELOW BUT IT WAS GOOD TO HEAR FROM HIM.




Hi Rico,
This will be a rather long post but some have said that that Wimberley fellow would say NO to P133. with no evidence to support this claim apart from the fact that I warned people away from being on the Electoral Commission a few years ago now, and did the interview about that Commission, which was indeed hijacked disgracefully by the powers that be..
First, a minor point, but it allows a bit of context. You write that P15/2011 was “unanimously passed” – if only.  Just for the record you wrote that a bit too fast.  It was a good majority, no recounts required, but it was not unanimous!  The vote was 29 to 18 for my proposition AS AMENDED.
And there’s the rub. The amendments of Ben Shenton got big majorities. At the time I was suspicious that their purpose was to wreck the idea further down the line, but I had to vote for some of them because it looked like they could not be stopped. Some of my colleagues told me categorically that the wrecking of the Commission would happen if the amendments were passed.
And they were right. Shenton’s amendments made possible the shenanigans of Sir Philip and PPC and eventually killed the intention of the proposition. One lesson therefore is do not trust Shenton who is a populist and sometimes sounds appealing but is dangerous and also on occasion talks serious tosh!
Now to the serious stuff.
First,   PLEASE everyone on here cool down !!
We have Sam slagging people off and calling them liars. And on the other side we have people talking tosh and saying for example that Sam is “getting into bed with” Lewis. He has said many times that he isn’t – and that for example he will highlight any criticism of anybody who has failed when the COI report is published (which will presumably include Lewis, unless it is a total whitewash and no one is criticised at all, which I doubt, but which is possible).
Sam says for example (rightly) that if Lewis brought a proposition tomorrow to raise the minimum wage he would support it for the same reason – that it is better than the present situation, a lot better, and that the possible rehabilitation effect for Lewis is outweighed by the benefit of the proposition. This is a reasonable position to take.
The only people who are happy with what is going on over here on your blog are the powers that be, who are quietly rubbing their hands in glee. Why are the left so good at tearing each other up? And please everyone be aware of the trolling which is undoubtedly what some posts are.  They are carefully angled to prey on people’s prejudices and spread misinformation about RJ and Sam in particular.
Here is an example; “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.“
Think about it – does this ring true or does it sound like someone seeking to paint RJ and Sam in a bad light regardless of what the discussion is really about? To my mind this is (pretty obvious) trolling.
Second,    the key issue is how the States system actually works. 
Sam writes, for example: “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.” This sums up how Jersey’s system works exactly.
There are no overt parties in jersey, Yes there is the establishment party, or the COM + loyal poodles, and many issues are decided along those lines – COM vs the rest.
But there are many issues where people vote more freely. Two examples from my time in the States:
We won the Electoral Commission (to my surprise) because enough members voted with their conscience and respected the strength of the arguments, so while the COM party voted against we still got enough votes to win comfortably.
Of course there was something else going on, which was that Shenton’s amendments had weakened the proposition as I described at the beginning of this post. But the Powers that Be could not know that everything would turn out hunky dory. For example Sir PB was not even in the States. The hard establishment still voted against having a Commission.
We won the vote to force TTS to take hazardous waste out of the waste stream at Bellozanne and not burn it. The COM were pledging, in the Strategic Plan, to take the toxic waste out when environmental taxes were put in place. “NO” we said - it had to be taken out now, no ifs no buts no conditions, the environmental taxes might never happen. And again this was won, comfortably, because people voted against the COM because the COM’s position was indefensible.
Now look at this statement of Sam’s again:
“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.”
P133 is better than what exists now, and there is a real possibility that it weakens the position of the Constables enough. For example with fewer members it will become less and less tenable for a reduced States Assembly to “carry” so many unproductive members.
Yes it is a pity that RJ did not bring the proposition, and even something better still. However a) a really good proposition would not win (that is why I spent so much time to set up a real, independent, robust Electoral Commission whose process and conclusions would be effective in preparing public and States for real change, and I saw this as the ONLY way to get democracy in Jersey) and b) the SAME proposition as Lewis is bringing might not win if brought by RJ.
So yes hitch on to the bandwagon, you never know, P133 might get through. Embrace and use the resulting change, Feel absolutely free to say and do whatever is right about Lewis when the COI report comes out. Probably bring a vote to sack him from PAC as being unfit to hold that office, and /or act to remove him from the States which he has disgraced.
All that is for later.  My open letter about the Electoral Commission was then, my interview was then and I stand by them. But at the same time they are history.
I am not sure what I would do now if I was in the States. Perhaps campaign long and hard in public to create a climate which would prepare the ground for a proper reform proposition. There are certainly better solutions than P133, I did one myself, never got debated even due to the usual shenanigans.
It is here:

I do not have the time to work out what I would actually do. It would take days. But please please do not play into the hands of the other side in all this. Keep it civil. Keep together. Remember our common interests.

26 comments:

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Excellent post by Daniel.

Also readers might be interested in liking and sharing the new Team Voice Facebook page HERE?

Anonymous said...

Fell asleep just after the intro.
You only respect people who think for you Rico.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Daniel says this: -

"P133 is better than what exists now, and there is a real possibility that it weakens the position of the Constables enough. For example with fewer members it will become less and less tenable for a reduced States Assembly to “carry” so many unproductive members."

Sorry. Utterly wrong.

P.133 does the complete opposite of "weakening the Constables".

It cements their power - their invulnerability - their irremovability.

And that is obviously - obviously - so.

Still, this isn't the first time Daniel Wimberley has allowed his intellectual vanity to drag him into the position of supporting plain garbage and simply being used.

Stuart Syvret

Jerry Gosselin said...

After all those paragraphs he ends by saying that he's not sure what to do! Another classic Wimberley waffle!

Anonymous said...

Typical response from Stuart Mezec. There are ways of disagreeing with people without insulting them you know?

Anonymous said...

B+ may strenghten the constables in the chamber in the short term but it will significantly weaken them in the long term as with only deputies and unelected constables the difference will be clearer to the public and they will no longer have the senators mutual support. As a strategist Sam is head and shoulders above Stuart in this one.

Anonymous said...

In a B+ system the deputies are more likely to vote out the constables as it will increase their own chances of reelection. Self interest will win the day.

Anonymous said...

@8:32
Indeed, it would do no harm if the Ex Health Minister could be right in a more diplomatic way.

Referring to Ex H.M. Syvret as  "Stuart Mezec" is however itself a rather uncalled for slur, don't you think?

Not only is Mr.Syvret very highly experienced, but more importantly he is *almost* invariably RIGHT.

Chairman Mouzec is also rude with considerably less style.
Mouzec's rudeness is particularly jarring because he is almost certainly WRONG to kick real reform into the long grass with Lewis's rehash of Bailhache's "Option B"

Tom Gruchy said...

Must say I was a bit puzzled to know whether this was a post by Rico or Daniel but presume it is Daniel.
So far as taking whatever small reforms that are achieved with suitable gratitude is concerned - I must say that this has been the political reality all my life and my parents life - and I recall my grandfather enthusing about the likes of Ben Tillet and future Labour governments etc etc
It is not good enough.
The sad fact is that just simply fiddling at the edges is not going to solve the huge injustices in this little Island or in the wider world.
The role of opposition is just what it says on the tin. It cannot solve the problems and in an Island where (for example) the UN Convention for the Elimination of all forms of discrimination against Women (CEDAW) has not only not been ratified but is not even on the live agenda of the "progressives" seeking reform - then I am afraid that my grandfather's aspirations are still way ahead of anything that is likely to be achieved here.

Anonymous said...

Time Stuart Syvret was put in his box as the political hasbeen he is. To think he attack's Wimberley's 'intellectual vanity'! This from the vainest politician to ever fall out of the It's all about me tree! Sorry, Rico, but Syvret really is so two faced. he was the man who destroyed Clothier with his touring of the parishes. Syvret did much good in his time. But he is also the biggest hypocrite ever elected. Give me Daniel Wimberley any day. And he is not 'invariably right. Over the last eight years he has more often been invariably wrong.

Anonymous said...

The post at @8:32 is hilariously funny.

Keep up the good work Mr Mezec.

Anonymous said...

Mr Syvret - your comments about Daniel Wimberley are rather 'pot and kettle' are they not!

The heading of the post mentions that these were DW's thoughts on the proposition and Rico said that he did not agree with all his points. No nastiness, no back stabbing, just good clean debate even though they may have differences.

Unlike yourself Mr Syvret, who seems to think he is ALWAYS right - that indicates vanity in the extreme. Are you unable to give anybody except yourself any credit for anything??

Dandruff shampoo? said...

I preferred the pro-Mezec comment @08:55

"As a strategist Sam is head and shoulders above Stuart in this one."

head and shoulders being subliminally referring to those wavy locks of raven hair :-)

No flakes on Me!

Anonymous said...

If we're going to talk about putting Syvret back in his box, Mike Dun alias Tom Gruchy belongs in there with him. That the current option is short of what Jersey wants isn't in dispute. But Mr Dun has never had anything better to offer, only snark that undermines the efforts of others. Time he put up or shut up.

Anonymous said...

As a stratigist just about everyone from the halpess Geoff Southern to Adolf Hitler is/was ahead of Stuart Syvret.

For all of his undoubted elequency - when not being the rudest person ever to get in the States - Syvret's inability to accept that others might just occassionally be right and His Wonderfulness wrong has set back progressive politics (whatever that is exactly) a good two decades.

Mezec is displaying an unwelcome hint of thinking he is the Big I Am though. Hopefully he will eventually wise up and do what Syvret never managed i.e. grow up and realise a week is a long time in politics.

As far as Option B plus goes Mezec may unfortunately find that after helping inadvertantly give credibility to Andrew Lewis he may need about 50 weeks before people forget. Maybe 150?

Anonymous said...

Deputy Mezec was supported by a lot of his followers who didn't agree or believe he would make it as Senator in the recent bi-election. And just a few months later, he is (hopefully) supported by a lot of people who don't agree or believe with his stance on P133/2016....
He cant be wrong twice? Surely!?

Anonymous said...

Ironic that both Stuart Syvret and Sam Mezec have attacked people online for having their own views. We live in a World where free speech is a right, yet they take offence to the slightest of views away from their own which and this is so undemocratic.

Anonymous 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.“
Think about it – does this ring true or does it sound like someone seeking to paint RJ and Sam in a bad light regardless of what the discussion is really about? To my mind this is (pretty obvious) trolling.

I do not know who wrote this original comment but it is not trolling. Trolling is when you get a person wallowing in another person's misfortune. These are simply political statements and we've seen similar for years. Let's not lose sight of the fact that people are allowed an opinion and Sam hardly helped himself at the time.

If you don't agree with me shut up, sit down and give your arse a chance! said...

Rudness in politics is both fine and par for the course. All Sam Mezec needs to remember is that if you are going to do put-downs then do it with a straight-faced and articulate verbal kick in the political goolies. Mr Testicular Fortitude had made this almost an art form and I for one would hate it if all of our politicans had to be nice to each other when we all know many of them hate each other. The States is dull enough as it is.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

What HAPPENED?

TonyTheProf said...

Rico

Brilliant idea to contact Daniel.

BBC Radio goes for Adrian Lee, but us bloggers have Daniel Wimberley, our own resident guru!

Fantastic post, thanks for getting in touch with Daniel.

I was listening on and off to debate but don't know with massive amendments left right and centre what actually got passed, or whether it will be there in time for 2018.

Daniel Wimberley said...

My proposal for the States as referred to in my post was also for around 44, I forget exactly how many. The important thing was it:

a) kept the all-island mandate. Why? first, because that is what people want, far
above any other feature of a voting system and second, because it gives the public a say in who gets to be Ministers. I said this to the Commission and they totally ignored it, after all we can't have the plebs choosing their (I'm sorry, "our") Ministers, can we? One could add restrictions which would guarantee that Ministers would be chosen from Senators. Again I believe that this would be popular - the most common complaint about our [present system is that our votes have no effect on who gets to be the government.

b) scrapped the Constables for all the reasons we know, and

c) had Deputies elected in Parishes and districts within parishes (with one exception, where 2 parishes (iirc) had to go in together for the sake of proportionality. Why? Because first, the public clearly prefer deputies elected in this way to multi-member constituencies. (The only argument for multi-member constituencies is that it allows for proportionality, but with the all-island mandate kept which is absolutely proportional, and with my allocation of the deputy seats, which is also pretty exactly proportional, that argument falls away.

And second, because without the Constables this method keeps the link between parish and States, which I do think is important, and would also increase this solution's acceptability - which is an important criterion, in my book. Whatever solution ends up being the one we have should command the assent, the enthusiastic assent even, of the public.

I still think this is the best system which there could be.

daniel

Anonymous said...

An excellent open, positive and honest article by Mr Daniel Wimberley echos my thoughts on staying positive.

What is clear from many comments Rico is how fed up with this greedy, inadequate council of ministers - blog writers and islanders are, there is a lot of unneeded menace in some comments.

I am looking forward to using my vote to get rid of many of the known faces that waste the tax payers money ( now £3.5 for archive storage ) while taking money of pensioners and wanting to charge low and middle earners a sewage tax. Syvret was right you could not make this up. The trick is to stay positive as they did in Russia and eventually brought down the Berlin wall.

Again I read on another blog, I will never vote again. That is of course the equivalent (by not voting ) to hold the door open for them to get back in to their five star, globe trotting, well paid states club.

Do Gorst, Maclean, Ozouf, Green, Routier, Dj dick heads and as Daniel say poodles et al, think we are that stupid ? The vote is about all we have got to rid ourselves and they fear it - so use it and " Drain the swamp "

Boatyboy.

Anonymous said...

"As a strategist Sam is head and shoulders above Stuart in this one." I belong to the camp that thinks Syvret has little left to offer, but after Wednesday I call bullshit on that quote. Stuart has more knowledge and honesty in his little finger than Mezec has in his whole body. Mezec has blown it big time, and shown he has not only abandoned us, but his strategy was selfish and utter crap. If he is supposed to be the hope of the ordinary person why is he against us having a say in this by voting against referendums? He (and Southern and Tadier) were anti us having a say in ministerial government and against us voting on this proposition. don't you think thats weird for someone who tried to get us a vote on the chief minister? Obviously it doesn;t matter to him whose CM, but the ministerial gov and this might cause probems with his own ambitions. I won't vote for him again, and neither will my mates. Hes lied and cheated us and we won't let ourselves to fooled again. Reform is dead.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Andrew Lewis P.133/2017 TRAILER.

Anonymous said...

What infuriates this is that Sam was warned, over and over again, do not trust this man, because he will damage you, and he shrugged it off as if we were all mad.
Reform is over, its been kicked in the teeth this week and that's that.