Google+ Followers

Sunday, 13 November 2011

How to tell which party you would vote for

Having committed to myself that I will write one post per day I have been trawling the Jersey blogs for inspiration. So far I have written the blog up till Tuesday so let's hope my predictive abilities hold true and the candidate I think will be Chief Minister does indeed succeed.

I came across an old entry on crapaudpinion on "progressives" working together, or rather not. An excellent assessment of how the egos of the people often get in the way of forming a united front.

This flowchart just about sums the election up.
Swap Republican for Le Gresley, Democrat for Bailhache,
Libertarian for Pearce and Green for Forskitt
Now I was never in the JDA, the trouble is that there was never very much 'party' about it. There were too many people who wanted to be leader is how it seemed to me.

Working together means that some times things are not going to go your exact way. You have to put together a cohesive package of policies which a group of people can support, not just one person.

The 'establishment' has a cohesive package of policies and so can make vague statements of general intent without actually committing to anything, as the Civil Service duly reports their policies for them and as 'independents' States Members can align or distance themselves from each policy as they see fit, as they think will get them the most votes or otherwise serve their personal interests.

What the 'progressives' require is an alternate think-tank to produce ideas which can be floated, and once the reaction of the public has been gauged, 'progressive' States members can either take them up or not. But what is not required in the think-tank is leaders or egos.

A proper party structure is composed of individuals - setting up a political party is best done without any existing States Members and probably without anyone who hopes to be elected in the foreseeable future.

I also found this on Stuart Syvret's blog:

"Before you dismiss Darius Pearce, consider a few facts. Yes, his politics are those of market conservatism , which are not my politics. But - in what is a huge advantage over most of the other candidates, he is - as you say - 'self-declared' about his politics. There is a very refreshing honesty and transparency with Mr. Pearce".

Getting people to vote in Jersey is hard enough
but expecting them to make a considered vote
when the media only gives one side of an argument?
Sadly obfuscation and ambiguity seem to be the more effective campaign strategy, but it just isn't my nature. Nor is it beneficial to be less than totally straight with your customers, so businessmen often struggle in politics.

My major frustration is that Jersey electors are not given both sides of the argument by the media; there is no considered debate, no government assertion is ever challenged. There is no chance of an informed vote unless each elector goes to some considerable effort.

Criticism of electors who would vote for a candidate because they 'knocked on my door', 'are female' or 'are from a good Jersey family' is fair ONLY if evidence is available upon which they can make an informed choice. In Jersey it is not, so who, or what, is going to fill the void?