How to tell which party you would vote for

Historical Archive

This article is preserved as part of the historical record of this blog. It reflects the author's views at the time of publication. The content has not been substantively altered, although the HTML, accessibility and formatting have been updated to meet modern web standards.

---

Having committed myself to writing one post per day, I had been trawling the Jersey blogs for inspiration. So far I had written posts up until Tuesday, so I hoped my prediction about the next Chief Minister would prove correct.

This flowchart just about summed up the election. Swap Republican for Le Gresley, Democrat for Bailhache, Libertarian for Pearce and Green for Forskitt.

I came across an older post on Crapaudpinion discussing why Jersey's progressives struggled to work together. My own view was that there were simply too many people who wanted to lead and not enough willingness to compromise.

Working together means accepting that things will not always go your own way. A successful political movement needs a coherent package of policies rather than a collection of individual personalities.

I argued that the establishment effectively possessed such a policy machine through the Civil Service, allowing candidates to align themselves with popular policies while distancing themselves from unpopular ones.

Instead of competing egos, I suggested that reform-minded politicians needed an independent think tank capable of developing ideas which elected members could choose to adopt.

In my view, any genuine political party should be built from ordinary members rather than around existing States Members or aspiring candidates.

"There is a very refreshing honesty and transparency with Mr Pearce." — Stuart Syvret.

Getting people to vote in Jersey is difficult enough, but making an informed choice is harder when only one side of an argument is widely reported.

I concluded that my greatest frustration was the lack of balanced political debate in Jersey's media. Government assertions were rarely challenged, leaving electors with little opportunity to hear competing arguments unless they undertook significant research themselves.

Criticising voters for making decisions based upon personality, family background or superficial factors is only fair if they are first given sufficient information to make an informed choice. I questioned who, if anyone, would fill that gap.

---

Historical Archive Update

This page was updated on 27 July 2026. The content has been preserved as originally published. This update was undertaken solely to modernise the HTML markup, improve accessibility, correct obvious spelling mistakes and grammatical slips, update obsolete links where appropriate, and bring the page into line with current web standards.