A Parish Assembly is an important meeting, as the decisions made affect the whole of a parish.
The Rates meeting is especially important, as this is the annual event at which the Connetable’s accounts are examined and the parish expenditure set for the following year.
How sad, therefore, that at our St Clement’s meeting tonight only 24 parishioners bothered to attend.
Worse still, neither of our parish Deputies were present – although I supposed we shouldn’t be surprised – they rarely attend parish Assemblies (didn’t attend last year’s Rates meeting either).
Funny how at election time they’re full of what they’ll do for the parish – only to disappear without trace until the next election! What do they do?
Throughout my ten years as parish Deputy, I made it my business to attend every parish Assembly and during that entire period doubt if I missed more than two or three. As for the present incumbents – Messrs Gorst and Dupre – they rarely attend any assembly.

                                                                                                        ———————–

Congratulations to Francis – he’s such a nice man.
However, he is quite unsuitable as a States member. He’s too nice – he’ll not be able to stand the personal attacks & abuse that comes with exposing corruption, wrong-doing, waste of taxpayers’ money, inappropriate decisions by the Council of Ministers etc.
So he’ll either disappear (like my replacement, Anne Dupre) or become a Council of Ministers lackey. In fact, for a newcomer, his campaign was a little too slick – not supported by the Council, by any chance???
He thinks he understands politics, but in reality he hasn’t a clue.

The reason I stood in the by-election was because I could see Jersey is at a financial crisis point and no-one in the States (or indeed among the other candidates) seemed to have a clue how to solve it.
There is only one way – reduce States expenditure by cutting from the top salaried staff – not the lower paid coal-face workers.
Let’s face it, remove two part -time cleaners might save perhaps £30,000 a year. Removing two non-accountable senior officers and you save £1/2 million plus. It’s a ‘no brainer’.

Instead, our Treasury Minister, Philip Ozouf, decides to cut front-line staff and raise taxes.

Francis Le Gresley’s only policy I could recognise was to raise Income Tax to 27% or more. In other words, more of the same, only worse.
Whereas before I was very concerned about the future of my Island, now I’m certain we’ll end up like Greece – only with no-one to bail us out. It’ll be back to the austerity of the days of the Occuption. I can only advise whoever has wealth in Jersey to liquidate it as soon as possible and move it out of Jersey before we become bankrupt.
And whose fault is it?
Not the politicians, but those idiots who elect them.

Don’t they realise Greece ended up in the mire - and are only avoiding revolution / bloodshed because EU countries are bailing them out (something not available to us) – because of its Socialist spend & tax policies?
And can’t our electorate recognise that Francis is as Socialist as they come?
Obviously not. Apparently being a ‘nice man’ is more important to them.
Had I won, questions would have been lodged ready for Tuesday 22nd – and a Proposition to start reducing public expenditure hopefully on the same day.
Maybe the public don’t realise there’s a background anti-Baudains campaign orchestrated by ministers. It’s done because I’m on their case – and effective – and they don’t like that. But they’ll love Francis the wimp!!

But what of the rest of the results?
Voters complain about our government, but continue to elect more of the same. Not only that, they are totally inconsistent.
They want change? Well, I was the one most likely to deliver - Stuart makes a fuss but doesn’t deliver, Geoff Southern has the balls but is actually in the same camp as Francis (leans so far to the left he’s in danger of falling over) whilst other ‘change’ candidates are too far down the viable list.

So what do the public do? they chose, in order of preference, status quo, change, status quo, change …..  which only goes to prove the public are not competent enough to select members of government. 

Running an election campaign is not only expensive – it also requires considerable effort to organise. For example, just to represent you at polling stations, you need to rota around 70 persons. 
Why should anyone bother to do that for such an unappreciative public?

And why would anyone want to put all that effort in merely to be insulted by the public? I have a record of honest hard work (and success) as a States member, frequently raising matters in the public interest that others were either unwilling (or incapable) of doing (the incinerator scandal and waterfront /Las Vegas law suit being just two examples).

So how do the voters reward my efforts (with a promise to continue that work for them)?
They elect a wimp to office, then proceed to put two more candidates ahead of me – Stuart, whose behaviour is a cause for concern (and achieves nothing) and Patrick who, apart from supporting the Council of Ministers, has likewise done nothing.
Even worse, the latter misled the electorate throughout the hustings by
1) saying he wanted to remove GST from food (in the full knowledge such a proposition had failed 4 times previously and therefore wasn’t going to happen)
2) not mentioning that he voted for GST in the first place,
3) supporting the Council of Ministers by saying zero / ten taxation complies with the EU Code (it certainly does not)
4) not saying he supported the Council in their quest for secret meetings (he was one of 14 who opposed my Proposition to open up those secret meetings) 
5) that although at a late stage in the hustings he added savings to his long, populist wish-list portrayed as ‘policy’ he nevertheless voted against achieving that in 2008 when I took a Proposition to do just that. I lost by one vote – had he supported me, by now we’d be well on our way to saving millions, thereby avoiding damaging tax increases.
His allegiance is towards the Council of Ministers, not the public, yet the public preferred him to me. And, as you can see from the above, he’s a past-master at misleading people.

Had I been narrowly beaten by Francis, I might have considered standing for election again.
For the voters to demonstrate their preference for Stuart and Patrick before me, makes my decision easy.
No chance. Not only wouldn’t I waste so much time and money again trying to persuade the electorate to vote for me, but why would anyone want to put up with the pressure, long hours, insults, lack of a private life etc working for people like that?
I repeat – the problem with Jersey’s government is not the people in it – it’s those idiots who vote them into office.
They don’t even have the gumption to see that some candidates are actually ‘planted’ (and supported) by the Council of Ministers to ensure ‘business as usual’ – There have been many examples in the past – and we’ve just had two in this election - but the public are too dim to understand what’s going on.
Instead of evaluating a candidate’s policies, they’re happy to be taken in by populist and meaningless propaganda masquerading as policy.

This by-election was probably the most important in the last 40 years – and the public fouled up in a big way.  On their decision rode the difference between Jersey surviving the present fiscal crisis - or entering financial ruin so bad that the Occupation will seem like a holiday in comparison.
They chose the latter.

I can only advise people to get out of Jersey while you can – thank you Francis and the Council of Ministers.

Postscript:   I’ve just heard that Francis intends doing nothing during this 16 month term except ‘learn the ropes’. Exactly as I said during the election campaign.
So, instead of having someone able to challenge the Council of Ministers during this crucial period (me), we have a wimp. Given Francis finishes his job as manager of CAB soon, perhaps he went for this job for the money? Who knows.  It’s certainly not because he understands politics.      
And his post-election JEP interview? He’s even more naiive than I thought. He states all States members only ask questions of the Council or lodge propositions to ‘prove they’re involved’. Arrogant arsehole.              
According to him, you only need to ask ministers and they’ll tell you everything!!!!!
What a prick!

And some ask why turnout is low & so many don’t vote. Is it any wonder?

 And finally  -  been reflecting (and discussing with the public) the way the public voted. Consensus is that the public are idiots and deserve what they get. Trouble is, what they get affects all of us – including those who understand what the Island needs.

And the problem is not unique to Jersey – just look at the UK – not only did the public put Labour back into office several times, they almost put it back again last time!   The country is on its knees facing huge cuts and tax rises – all thanks to Labour, not the recession – and the public wanted to take the country further down that road???  Either they’re mad, or actively working for some unknown entity that wishes to destroy the country.

So how do we resolve this?
Well, the public have proved themselves not sufficiently competent to elect governments. How else could it be done?
I’m suggesting candidates put themselves forward in the usual way, but are selected according to ability by an electoral college – rather like Jurats are presently elected.  
The college would be constituted by office, not personalities eg Connetables,  Jurats, Rectors etc.  At least then candidates would be selected according to ability, not whether they are ‘planted’, have a nice tie, know uncle Bert etc etc.

                                          ————————-

My analysis:-
Le Gresley:
a very nice man – complete gentleman. The States would eat him alive. Either that, or, as I suspect, he’ll become one of the Council of Minister’s ’sleepers’ – one who does little but can be relied on to vote ‘the right way’ .

Ryan:
Had a reputation for talking against a subject – and then voting for it (or vice-versa). An attempt to fool the listening public perhaps? A supporter of the ‘establishment’.
He has taking GST off food as no1 in his manifesto. That has already been debated 4 times – and lost 4 times, so he is suggesting something that won’t happen. I call that dishonest. If it concerns him so much, why did he vote for GST at its introduction, knowing it included food?
Whilst Ryan sat on fences, I was working. I could not list the questions, amendments and propositions I lodged in my ten years as Deputy – must be in the hundreds – whereas I believe my replacement – Dupre – has yet to do one.

One example, was when I exposed the Las Vegas lawsuit during the waterfront debate. The abuse hurled at me by ministers was unbelievable. Apparently I was lying and should consider my position. Yeah? I do my homework – I had the Judge’s name, the Court’s name, the case number and the pleadings on my desk.
When I told Walker that if he didn’t apologise I’d lodge a vote of no confidence in him in the morning (which would have precipitated the collapse of the Council of Ministers) things soon changed, and apologies were made.

There are very few who would have had the balls to see that through – certainly none of the other present candidates. Could you see Le Gresley doing that? Or Ryan opposing the Council?

It’s easy to say what you can do, so below I’ve pasted details of a Proposition I lodged (and won).
There was an outrageous situation whereby all States Chief Officers, Bill Ogley (and the Chief of Police) met fortnightly to discuss things. What, we didn’t know, as politicians weren’t allowed into the meetings. We weren’t even allowed to see the minutes.
In the face of concerted opposition from Ministers, I got this secret society into the open.
Note Ryan supported ministers by voting against.

STATES OF JERSEY

Corporate Management Board: access to meetings and minutes
Lodged au Greffe on 23rd January 2008 by Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion -

to request the Chief Minister to –

(a) make available to elected members the minutes of the Corporate Management Board meetings;

(b) arrange that elected members are advised of the Board’s meetings so that they may observe those meetings should they so wish.

DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT

REPORT

I have to say that the Chief Minister’s attitude, when asked whether he would disclose the deliberations of these meetings, is quite unacceptable.
He has now refused, at two separate question times, to move from his position, which is not that the meetings of these people are privileged, but that he believes matters discussed are implementational, and therefore not what members should be involving themselves with.
Such a position appears terribly arrogant. It is not for the Chief Minister – or any other Minister – to decide what would constitute a waste of backbenchers’ time. That is for member themselves to decide.
We are not schoolchildren needing to be guided away from activities that are of no concern to us. We are all members of government, and anything done in our name should at least be monitored by us.
At present, it would appear no-one is monitoring these people.
Since the advent of ministerial government, many functions previously carried out by politicians are now delegated to civil servants. The idea that the latter merely implement policy generated by Ministers is misleading. Ministers don’t have the time or resources to develop policy, so it is developed by senior civil servants, and offered to Ministers as solutions.
If the Council of Ministers truly believes it develops policy, it deludes itself – and misleads others. The truth is each Minister is briefed by his Department; meaning, in fact, that it is the Department which develops policy.
States members have a duty to scrutinise such activities.
The Chief Minister assures us that discussions at Corporate Management Board meetings are about policy implementation. As explained above, it must be obvious that these are pretty high-level discussions. Indeed, one might hope that a meeting between people whose combined salaries far exceed a million pounds per year does not involve mundane matters of a managerial nature.
Quite apart from the suspicion generated by keeping these meetings secret, one has to ask how such a position fits in with today’s supposedly ‘open’ government? If, indeed, such meetings are of no interest to politicians, then those members will soon tire of reading the minutes or attending meetings. I suspect the reality may be somewhat different. Either way, it is not for the Chief Minister to tell other members there is no need for them to know what’s going on – it’s for members to find out for themselves.
Naturally, should commercially sensitive or otherwise confidential material come up for discussion at these meetings, then the obvious way of dealing with it would be an ‘A’ and ‘B’ agenda – the latter having only a reference to the subject concerned.
We are in an age where more authority than ever has been given to civil servants – and where public spending is rising at an alarming rate. An age where projects of public interest appear from nowhere yet, without debate or consultation, seemingly develop a momentum of their own. The ability to get behind some of the initial thinking that subsequently coalesces into these projects can only be beneficial to democracy and, at the same time, help reconnect politicians with the public.

There are no financial or manpower implications for the States arising from this proposition

details of vote:     (note carefully who voted for secrecy)

Corporate Management Board – access to meetings and minutes -paragraph (a) minutes to be made available  12 February 2008 Proposition:  Corporate Management Board – access to meetings and minutes
	POUR: 29    CONTRE: 14    ABSTAINED: 1   ILL: 1    OUT OF ISLAND: 1    EN DEFAUT: 2    NOT PRESENT: 4    EXCUSED ATTENDANCE: 1
	Senator Stuart Syvret	POUR
	Senator Leonard Norman	CONTRE
	Senator Frank Harrison Walker	CONTRE
	Senator Wendy Kinnard	CONTRE
	Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur	CONTRE
	Senator Paul Francis Routier	CONTRE
	Senator Michael Edward Vibert	CONTRE
	Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf	OUT OF ISLAND
	Senator Terence John Le Main	POUR
	Senator Ben Edward Shenton	NOT PRESENT
	Senator Frederick Ellyer Cohen	CONTRE
	Senator James Leslie Perchard	CONTRE
	Connétable Kenneth Priaulx Vibert	NOT PRESENT
	Connétable Kenneth Alan Le Brun	POUR
	Connétable Thomas John du Feu	NOT PRESENT
	Connétable Derek Frederick Gray	POUR
	Connétable Alan Simon Crowcroft	POUR
	Connétable John Le Sueur Gallichan	CONTRE
	Connétable Geoffrey William Fisher	POUR
	Connétable Daniel Joseph Murphy	ILL
	Connétable Michael Keith Jackson	POUR
	Connétable Silvanus Arthur Yates	POUR
	Connétable Graeme Frank Butcher	EXCUSED ATTENDANCE
	Connétable Peter Frederick Maurice Hanning	POUR
	Deputy Robert Charles Duhamel	POUR
	Senator Alan Breckon	POUR
	Deputy Jacqueline Jeannette Huet	POUR
	Deputy Frederick John Hill, B.E.M.	POUR
	Deputy Gerard Clifford Lemmens Baudains	POUR
	Deputy Peter Nicholas Troy	POUR
	. Celia Joyce Scott Warren	POUR
	Deputy Roy George Le Hérissier	POUR
	Deputy John Benjamin Fox	POUR
	Deputy Judith Ann Martin	POUR
	Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern	POUR
	Senator Sarah Craig Ferguson	CONTRE
	Deputy James Gordon Reed	NOT PRESENT
	Deputy Patrick John Dennis Ryan	CONTRE
	Deputy Carolyn Fiona Labey	POUR
	Deputy Collin Hedley Egré	POUR
	Deputy Jacqueline Ann Hilton	CONTRE
	Deputy Guy William John de Faye	CONTRE
	Deputy Paul Vincent Francis Le Claire	POUR
	Deputy John Alexander Nicholas Le Fondré	EN DEFAUT
	Connétable Deidre Wendy Mezbourian	POUR
	Deputy Anne Enid Pryke	POUR
	Deputy Sean Power	EN DEFAUT
	Deputy Shona Pitman	POUR
	Senator Alan John Henry Maclean	POUR
	Deputy Kevin Charles Lewis	POUR
	Deputy Andrew David Lewis	CONTRE
	Deputy Ian Joseph Gorst	POUR
	Connétable Juliette Gallichan	ABSTAINED

                                                                                   —————————————————

Firts item is the manifesto I distribute at the hustings, below are transcripts of a few of the speeches I’ve given:

On June 16^th you will be electing someone to complete a 16 month term of office.

I am therefore surprised that some candidates are offering long lists in their manifestoes – without any defined plan of action. Either they are naïve or trying to mislead, because, suggesting they could address more than a handful of issues in that time is nonsense.

I could list all the matters that concern me:- tourism, agriculture, economic diversification, looming pension deficit; plus many others, but I’ve never promised that which I can’t deliver – or even might not be able to deliver.

Consequently my message in this campaign has been a simple one – to concentrate on the major issues – and there can’t be anything more major than our looming balance of payments deficit.

How has this come about? Well, the infamous zero / ten tax structure (which never complied with the EU Code despite Senator Le Sueur’s assurances that it did– he lied all along) means our tax income falls by around £100m per year. Add to that the effects of the recession, and we have a problem.

As any business knows (and I’ve successfully run my own business for nearly 40 years) if you don’t control your overheads, you go bankrupt.
In the case of government, politicians take the easy way out by increasing taxes to balance the books.

Unfortunately, it’s a flawed strategy, because, as in business, raising your cost-base makes you uncompetitive. In our case it means the Island would create further difficulties for tourism, agriculture, fisheries  – and any other exporting enterprise – at just the time we should be encouraging them as a way of diversifying our economy.

 So – we have a choice – hefty tax increases – or cutting back on expenditure.
This is where I get annoyed with some of my fellow candidates, who suggest any cuts will lead to ‘reduced front-line services, reduced Benefits, etc’.
Irresponsible rubbish.
Sure, if we follow the present States Strategy of asking Departments to reduce spending by 5% (or whichever figure preferred) that may happen.
Fortunately, it probably won’t, as all previous similar attempts have failed due to Departments putting forward totally unacceptable areas for cutting – as we saw in the JEP just the other day.

I oppose cutting any front-line services – or adding to unemployment by a careless cull of our public service.
Instead, I want to address matters such as: – Why is our police force one of the highest paid in the world? Why does an Island of 45 square miles need over 8,000 civil servants,  100 of whom are paid over £150,000 a year?

I want to regain political control of our public services (how many know a minister is not allowed to interfere in his Department?) and make them efficient and fit for purpose.

To address this, in 2008 (I was a States Deputy for 10 years) I brought Proposition P49    “To agree that a working party should be established to investigate the appropriateness of the internal structure of each Department of the States to ascertain whether it is fit for purpose and to report back to the States with its findings within 6 months.”

I lost that Debate by one vote. (Deputy Ryan was one who opposed me – had he supported, we’d be on our way by now to cutting public expenditure)

However, because I enjoyed cross-House respect, members advised me that should I bring that Proposition back, I would succeed. Unfortunately I lost my seat and was unable to do so.

 Should I be successful in this election, my first priority will be to re-lodge that Projet.
And I am confident of success.
I do not offer vague promises – nor am I economical with the truth. One candidate has removal of GST on food top of his agenda – but he doesn’t tell you he supported the introduction of GST in the first place (when it included food).

Other candidates will tell you about their integrity, ability, etc. etc.
I leave my 10yrs in the States to speak for itself. Who, fiercely opposed by ministers, exposed the Harcourt / Las Vegas court case? I did.  Who exposed those behind manipulating the waterfront telephone poll? I did. Who, apart from perhaps one other member, put more questions / lodged more Amendments & Propositions than anyone else? I did. Who put a stop to Chief Officers’ secret meetings? I did.

Who served on Public Services, Housing, Telecoms, Privileges and Procedures, Legislation and other committees? Was a member of the Law Revision Board and vice-chairman of the Environment Scrutiny Panel? I was.

I have a reputation for straight-talking and commonsense. I am not diverted by opposition. There are two Budgets between now and the next election – we need to sort our finances now – in 16 months time it will be too late – the die will be cast.
So now is not the time for a new recruit to start his learning curve – or the ambiguous or faint-hearted to take office. Believe me, the States Chamber can be a bear-pit.

It requires someone with ability and drive, and I believe my track record proves I have those qualities.

Finally, to those who don’t vote because “one person can’t change anything” – I say “you’re wrong, look at my record” (it’s all there, on-line – look up ‘States Greffe’).

                                                                         00000000000000000000000000000000000

Transcript of the speech I gave on Thursday May 27th at St Martin:-

Mons Le Connetable,
Ladies & Gentlemen,

It’s impossible to cover all the serious issues facing this Island in my allotted 5 mins, so if anyone requires more information about my policies, please go to my website  – gerardbaudains.com

Firstly, let me say I do not support Socialist tax and spend agendas. They remove incentive and encourage a Benefits Culture – thereby promoting poverty.
It goes without saying one must support the sick and needy, but – if you go too far – you end up with a bankrupt economy and unable to support anyone.
I have never subscribed to the notion of dragging the rich down to the level of the poor – I’d rather create the conditions where the poor can become wealthy.

You know, running a country (or this Island) is no different from running a business. If you don’t control your overheads (in our case public expenditure) the only option is to raise prices  -  but that makes you more expensive than your competitors.

Jersey already has a high cost base – dentist fees on a par with Beverly Hills, housing on a par with Mayfair.
Heating oil, construction materials – you name it – it costs a lot more here than almost anywhere else.
We don’t want it any higher – trouble is, raising taxes is the easy option for government.
Believe me, if GST goes up to 15 or 20%, it won’t be coming back down.
That’ll be an extra cost we have to bear forever.

The trouble is, this Island has had it too good for too long. We have grown complacent.
Our police force is one of the highest paid in the world.  Why?
Around 90 civil servants get £150,000 or more a year  – yet most can’t make a decision without calling in consultants.
We still pay final salary pensions – which most others stopped long ago.
Each year the Public Sector breaches the Budget set by the States the previous year – by over £10m.
We paid over £100m for an incinerator we could have bought for £66m,

We have shed-loads of bureaucracy – which not only stifles business – and therefore tax income – but requires yet more civil servants to administer.
How much longer do we let this go on?
Do we tackle the problem now – or wait until we can no longer afford to treat the sick or pay pensioners?

There are two Budgets between now and the next election. By then, it will be too late to change direction. The Treasury Minister’s savings will have failed – as similar attempts have all failed in the past – and taxes will have gone up.
Let’s face it – our ministerial government’s track record on spending is appalling.
About three years ago they claimed to have made £20m worth of ‘savings’. Only it was ‘reinvested’ – not saved at all.
They made cuts of £13m in the 2008 Business Plan – only to amend their own Proposition to add it back again!

Much as I want Senator Ozouf to succeed, his calls for reduction will not work. As usual, it will merely result in deferment of capital projects and a reduction in maintenance programmes – no savings at all.

What I propose is an altogether more vigorous approach.
If we’re not to end up like Greece or the UK, we must first look at all the services we provide -  and separate what’s necessary from what’s nice to have
We must re-assess manning and remuneration levels  – because over time our Public Service has evolved into an unaccountable, inefficient machine.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m not talking mass redundancy, cutting back front-line services  – or reduced salaries. What I’m asking for is more appropriate contracts for new employees.

Finally, none of this could, with respect, be done by a new recruit to the States. It takes about a year to learn the ropes – by which time it’ll be too late.

The reason I’m standing is because these problems – and others – are urgent.
I’m a straight-talking, no-nonsense type of guy – and I have the experience to make a difference immediately.
Not only that, but I have respect across the States Assembly.
It’s all very well throwing grenades in there – and heaven knows they need a few – but if you can’t get support from other members you’re wasting your time.  

 Thank you.

                                                                                       —————————————

Transcript of speech @ Communicare, St Brelade. May 28th:

Last night several candidates spoke of problems facing the Island – but none really addressed the main, overriding problem – and no-one (except myself) actually offered a policy to deal with it.
It’s all very well talking about Jersey’s problems – of which we’re all well aware – and referring to one’s honesty, integrity & so on – but what you  (the public) want to know is what we (the candidates) plan to do about it.

How we are going to make a difference – and not simply slip into oblivion or become on of the ministers’ lackeys as so many do, having entered the States?
So first, let me tell you why I’m qualified for this senatorial vacancy:

1.    I have a good education – with many academic and engineering qualifications.

2.    I have a high IQ – it’s around 145 – so it doesn’t take me long to figure out what’s going on – especially when ministers try to mislead me!

3.    I once worked as a civil servant myself – in the MOD -  so I know how the public service operates.

4.    I’ve run my own successful business for nearly 40 years. 

5.    And my record as a States Deputy for ten years speaks for itself – hardworking, outspoken and not intimidated by anyone.

Also, apart from Stuart, I’m the only candidate who served in our Committee system of government – so not only can I compare that with the shambles that is Ministerial government, but having served on Public Services, Housing, Telecoms and other committees, I know how our local public service operates.
Now, what’s wrong with everything?
Or should I ask, what’s right?

Sure, we can worry about States members free sandwiches, whether or not cyclists should wear helmets, how many States members there should be  – meanwhile Jersey is slowly going bankrupt.
There are a thousand things wrong, but we can’t deal with them all at once – we have to prioritise -  which is why my platform in this election is a simple one – reduce public expenditure and sort out ministerial government.

As I said last night, running an Island is no different from running a business – if you don’t control your overheads, you go bust. The easy option of balancing the books by raising taxes must be avoided because, like a business raising its prices, it makes you uncompetitive.
In Jersey’s case, that means finance services moving to lower-cost areas, fewer tourists – and more difficulties for all businesses generally.

Of course, we can pretend there’s not a problem – we can look the other way – or, like our Socialist friends, advocate making matters worse with a ‘tax and spend’ culture. That’s fine – if we want to end up like Greece or the UK.
Well I don’t want to see my Island go that way
And, as those other countries have found out – the longer you leave it, the more painful the remedy.

Jersey is at a financial crossroads. Between now and the next election there are two Budgets:- We can either take the easy option of increased taxation  – or we can reduce wasteful expenditure. Increased taxation will eventually lead us back to the same problem, so the only workable option is reducing expenditure.

It’s crazy that Jersey has over 8,000 public servants;
a police force that’s one of the highest paid in the world; 
that Departments overspend the States-set Budget every year by over £10m -
I could spend an hour describing waste by the £million, but time does not allow.

So how do I propose to solve this problem?
Well, for a start I’m tired of hearing that it’s a waste of time voting because one person can’t do anything. That’s not true, so please make an effort to vote on June 16^th.

A States member can achieve much with the right Propositions – provided he has the respect of his fellow members.
I always did, so, together with my States experience, if elected I would start effective work on June 17^th. – something a new member could not.

What is it I propose to do?
Well, the scare-mongering that reducing public expenditure would result in cuts to front-line services and mass unemployment is, frankly, irresponsible.
What is needed – and I’m confident of persuading the States to adopt such a Proposition – is a root and branch review of our public services.
Separating necessary services from the nice-to-have.
Reviewing salaries and giving new recruits revised contracts.
Outlawing restrictive practises.
Streamlining management structures.
Making Departments responsible and their staff accountable – it’s unacceptable that no matter how serious the cock-up, no-one is ever held to account. That simply encourages the wrong attitude and would be totally unacceptable in the private sector.
Basically, we need private sector accountability and efficiency in our public services.

Thank you for listening.

Conclusion
First of all, I’d like to thank you all for a useful evening and some interesting questions.
As I for myself, there was a rumour circulating that ‘the establishment’ were promoting a candidate specifically to stop either Stuart or Geoff getting in.
I’m still trying to figure out which one of us that is – it’s certainly not me!

I made it clear in my opening speech what my policy is: 
the reduction of public sector waste – whether that’s by over-manning, inappropriate management structures, a lack of accountability or simply the shambolic financial systems  (if you can call them that) which Departments employ.  What I’m not proposing is mass redundancies – or the private sector remedy where existing employees have to re-apply for their jobs at reduced salary. That would be quite inappropriate.

Thank you.

                                                                                   —————————————————

Transcript of 1/6/’10 (St Saviour)

Reading through the other candidate’s literature, I note some are still trying the old trick of being all things to all people. Long lists of things they pretend they’re going to deal with – I say pretend, because this election is about finishing off an 18 month term before the main election next year.

 It can take weeks or months to prepare a States Proposition – and as long again before it’s debated.

All this on top of the vast amount of work a States member has anyway  – the paperwork alone arrives at about 50 pages a day.

 I note one candidate has removing GST on food at the top of his list.
That subject has been debated in the States at least four times – and rejected four times. So what’s the chance of success next time?  The candidate concerned actually voted for GST in the first place   -  I voted against it.

So candidates are misleading you if they suggest they’re going to address every problem facing Jersey in the next 18 months.

Politics is the art of the possible.
Which is why I’ve concentrated on the two major issues facing Jersey at this time  -  the looming financial disaster -  and our dysfunctional ministerial system.

My main policy is more important than all the others put together.
If Jersey doesn’t balance its books, then all other issues go in the waste bin  -  and the only way we’re going to do that is to gain control over our run-away expenditure.
It’s what any business has to do to avoid bankruptcy.

I do not propose cutting front-line services, reducing benefits – or throwing lots of people out of work.
What I am proposing is a fundamental review of our public services.
Is the structure appropriate for today’s needs?
Do we have the right number of people – of the right qualifications  – at an appropriate salary?

Until we know that, any attempt at savings is merely posturing.
We must start by separating essential services from the nice-to-have. And it would help if the States stopped passing so many Laws and Regulations -   which in themselves, require an army of civil servants to administer.

Two years ago I lodged a Proposition in the States to achieve just such a review.
I lost the debate by one vote.
Which means that if the same candidate who voted for GST hadn’t voted against me, we would now be well on the way to solving our financial crisis.

Anyway, after that vote, it was generally accepted – across the States – that if I brought the Proposition back, I would succeed.
Sadly, I was unable to do that.

If elected to the position of senator, resubmitting that Proposition will be my first priority.
Throughout my life I’ve made a point of never promising either what I can’t deliver – or even what I might not  be able to deliver.

I am confident of achieving what I propose – the first step in getting Jersey back to financial stability.

Sometimes I wonder if people realise just how precarious our position is – and who would bail us out if it all goes wrong?

Years of boasting how rich the Island was, was not a clever thing to do.
Jersey’s financial situation is critical.
There are two Budgets between now and the next election– after which the die will be cast as to which way Jersey is going.

So it requires someone with experience and proven ability, someone who can start effective work immediately.

My ten years as Deputy and nearly 40 years in business speak for themselves.
I have a reputation for getting things done where others fail.
Pressure and obstruction from the Council of ministers does not faze me.

I believe I am the best candidate to achieve what needs to be done. 

Thank you.

                                                                           ————————————————

I’m getting tired of this disaster area, but am forced to respond to the JEP article of May 11th. 

In the UK, there are national and regional newspapers of varying political persuasions. One presumes that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but, here in Jersey, we have only one publication – the JEP. I believe, therefore, that it is incumbent on the latter to publish factually and not put bias in its reporting. Sadly I have not always believed that to be the case. Also,  we can probably all recall hearing the saying ‘don’t believe everything you read in the JEP’ at some time or other.  To that portfolio we can now add another – rewriting history.

The JEP of May 11th, on page 33, states:-  ” JEP saves Island from potential finance centre mistake”. It goes on to state:- “The Esplanade Quarter might have gone ahead without proper financial safeguards had the JEP not investigated the proposed developers behind the scheme”. They continue:- “…Frank Walker reassured his fellow politicians that developers Harcourt were credible and not involved in any court proceedings anywhere else. However, that evening a team of reporters used every method available to them to investigate the rumours about Harcourt.”
They also state:- “After the JEP’s reports, the development plans were put on hold while every baspect of the development was properly scrutinised”. 
So it was the JEP who uncovered the mess? In their dreams.
I’ve corrected the JEP about this before, but as it seems their ego exceeds their ability to report accurately, there’s little point in asking them to correct their misinformation yet again.

Fot those who are interested, here are the true facts:-

As a long-standing Deputy of St. Clement, people had got used to my painstaking research, my refusal to be intimidated and my quest to expose issues in the public interest.
As a result, I often received ‘tip-offs’ of one kind or another because people knew they could trust me not to betray the source of my information.  Recall the ‘phone-in’ seeking public response to the waterfront a few years ago and how the results favoured a certain outcome?  It appeared that just a few ‘phones made multiple calls – clearly intended to ’skew’ the results. Well, I received a tip-off that the ‘phones belonged to Dandara, but, because I couldn’t expose the source, had to use a different tactic - I proposed a States Inquiry into the matter, whilst pretending I had no idea who it might be. And guess what? Just a few hours before the scheduled States debate, Dandara admitted the ‘phones used belonged to them.

Likewise, I received information from various sources indicating disbelief that the States were considering using Harcourt as the developer for the multi-million pound Waterfront development. That was over a period of a couple of weeks, but it was not until I received an e-mail from a parishioner just before the States debate on the waterfront, that I had tangible evidence on which to act.
Following up on that lead, I discoverd that Harcourt were indeed defendants in a Las Vegas court case. Remembering that the USA is several hours behind us time-wise, I took a long shot and e-mailed the plaintif’s lawyer.
I got lucky – I received a reply giving all the details of the case including the case number, the name of the courthouse – even the judge’s name.

Armed with this, I challenged Senator Walker during the States deate, but he was adamant that no such case existed.
Furious at his misleading of the States Assembly, I rushed out and challenged him in the members’ room behind the Chamber. I said “Frank, either go back and retract what you said, or I’ll lodge a vote of no-confidence in you in the morning”.  He knew I wasn’t joking, and left to make a ‘phone call. He returned minutes later, his face rather grey.
He managed to utter something along the lines of “You were right – I’ll get that bloody Izatt (WEB managing director)”
Apparently, Izatt had told Frank that it was Harcourt’s responsibility to tell him (Izatt) if anything like that cropped up and they hadn’t. Apart from seeming outrageously naiive, I can’t quite believe that, as it would have taken Izatt more than two minutes to discover the truth had he not known about it. Maybe Izatt ‘phoned Harcourt whilst Frank was there and they admitted it – I don’t know.
Whatever, Frank went back into the Chamber and admitted his mistake. Trouble is, by then the vote had already been taken. 
So it was the JEP who exposed this? Yeah, right. And they spent all night investigating? Why didn’t they just ask me? After all, I had all the information.

Whilst I’m on the subject of the Waterfront and the managing director, Stephen Izatt, I notice that, according to the JEP of May 12th, the latter was speaking at a lunch of the Institute of Directors on May 11th - where he blamed ‘political interference’ for delays on the Waterfront. What a cheek! The guy is on £290,000 a year, and almost cost senator Walker his job by not checking out the developer!
Maybe it’s just as well there was ’political interference’ otherwise no doubt the project would by now have gone ahead. And where would we be now, with a developer who has since failed to raise the necessary bond to prove itself financially secure enough to undertake the project?
I’ve always maintained a project of that size should use three developers. That way, they’d compete with each other for progress and, should one pull out, the others, having witnessed the work, would take over. With one contractor, what would happen if he stopped work part way through? Another contractor would have to be brought in – on his terms – and would he be prepared to continue building on anothers’ foundation? I doubt it.

                                                                                        ————————————–

I’ve no confidence whatsoever that any present States member – nor any declared candidate so far – has sufficient understanding of how to reduce public spending (and therefore reduce the likelihood of increased taxes).
I have, and that would be my main platform – explaining why all previous attempts to cut back have failed.

That is why I’ve decided to stand in the forthcoming by-election created by Stuart Syvret’s non-attendance at States sittings. If successful, my main aim would be to get to grips with the departmental system that is a breeding ground for waste and inefficiency. It is not fair on our hard-working civil servants or our taxpayers to let this continue.
There are ways to tackle this and succeed, but it requires tackling the problem at its roots.
I’ll explain more later – don’t want other candidates pinching my ideas just yet!
Sadly, I note our Treasury minister has already given up in his quest to cut expenditure. In the JEP of May 5th he talks about issuing a consultation paper after the election asking the public which taxes they’d prefer raised!

In the meantime (rather like battle of flowers float building) a successful campaign requires more effort than people realise. Take, for example, polling day itself. You’d expect a representative of your preferred candidate to be there when you vote, right? Well, polls are open for 12 hours and, given that it would be unreasonable to ask a supporter to stand there for more than three hours, that’s 4 people required per parish (actually more, because St Brelade & St Saviour have two polling stations, and St Helier three. Get the idea?  Then there’s putting up posters and so forth.
Want to help?     e-mail me @ gclbaudains.co.uk

Have a nice day.

21st March 2010
Yep, those expensive, useless, high-carbon-footprint monstrocities loved by the ‘useful idiot’ environmentalists.
Get a load of this:

Some of Britain’s most beautiful landscapes have been blighted by wind farms for only small returns in energy, research shows.

The analysis of power output found that more than 20 wind farms are operating at less than one-fifth of their full capacity. Experts say many turbines are going up on sites that are simply not breezy enough.

They also accuse developers of ‘grossly exaggerating’ the amount of energy they will generate in order to get their hands on subsidies designed to boost the production of green power.

The giant wind farm off the North East coast at Blyth is one of the worst offenders
Britain’s most feeble wind farm is in Blyth Harbour in Northumberland, where the nine turbines lining the East Pier reach a meagre 7.9 per cent of their maximum capacity.
Another at Chelker reservoir in North Yorkshire operates at only 8.7 per cent of its potential. Both are relatively small and old, but larger, more modern sites fared badly too, the analysis of figures provided by energy regulator Ofgem for 2008 found.

For instance, the two turbines at High Volts 2, Country Durham, the largest and most powerful wind farm in Britain when it was commissioned in 2004, achieves an efficiency of just 18.7 per cent.

Turbine efficiency is calculated by comparing the theoretical maximum output with what the farms actually generate. While it is possible some of the results were skewed by breakdowns, the revelation that so many  are under-performing will be of great interest to those who argue that wind farms are little more than expensive eyesores.

The analysis was carried out by Michael Jefferson, an environmental consultant and a professor of international business and sustainability. He believes that financial incentives designed to help Britain meet is green energy targets are encouraging firms to site their wind farms badly.
Under the controversial ‘Renewable Obligation’ scheme, British consumers pay £1billion a year in their fuel bills to subsidise the drive towards renewable energy.
The professor told the Sunday Times: ‘Too many developments are under-performing. ‘It’s because the developers grossly exaggerate potential. ‘The subsidies make it viable for developers to put turbines on sites they would not touch if the money was not available.’

Professor Jefferson, of London Metropolitan Business School, has said previously: ‘We should be putting our money where the wind is and that is quite often not where the development pressure is.’

Britain has 2,741 wind turbines spread over 262 sites.  But the number is due to soar, with a further 7,000 planned for the next 12 years to meet European targets on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The industry said that other types of energy, from hydro to nuclear, have 50 per cent efficiency at best, and that Britain’s onshore wind farms are the best in Europe.
Nick Medic, of Renewable UK, which represents the wind industry, said Britain’s ambitious targets for green power meant the country ‘needed every bit of green energy it could generate’.
He added : ‘If it’s not windy, it’s not profitable, so why would you build?  No business is going to build something that is not profitable.’

In other headings, such as ‘be afraid’ I’ve tried to draw people’s attention to what is going on under their very noses – and what the real agenda is.
Did you know Blair was so keen to go to war in Iraq that he had Dr Kelly (the weapons inspector) murdered? The official – carefully contrived and highly unusual – investigation came to the conclusion of ’suicide’.
Many prominent medics argue that the scenario presented is medically impossible, but their calls for a proper enquiry have been rejected. I wonder why!

Closer to home, the ink wasn’t yet dry on the Bull Semen Imporatation Law – literally days later, something happened which, during the States Debate, we were told was ‘impossible’ – rogue semen imported and overnight the ‘pure Jersey’ breed we had is no more.
I argued during that debate that if white humans could end up with black babies (and vice-versa) from a similar process, then that process was anything but secure.
Of course, my arguments were ‘nonsense’ – apparently I didn’t understand the technology!
But who was proved right? Sadly, the ‘useful idiots and and those who care only about profit and to hell with Jersey and their fellow men won the day.

Some might say this incident (of rogue semen fertilising our cows) was a million – to -one mistake that will not be repeated.
Yeah? That was no ‘mistake’.
The reality is that half the cattle industry and a majority of States members were too thick to see the hidden agenda.
Like the ‘Swine ‘Flu’ hoax, with the unedifying specatacle of our Medical Officer of Health falling hook, line & sinker for the World Health Organisation’s  (read UN) plan to control the world by panic. Were you aware many eminent scientists believe the ’swine ‘flu virus’ was man-made? No, I thought not.

Now let’s move on to Genetically Modified ‘foods’.
The bullshit accompanying the introduction of these frankenstein foods is the motto ‘feed the world’. The implication is that only by introducing these hazardous materials can enough food be produced to feed the world!
This site may be read by juniors, so I’ll restrict myself to using one word – bullshit.

If you were one of the trusting (but foolish) who succumbed to having the ’swine ‘flu jab’ – did you know what was in that liquid injected into you? No, I thought not. I’ve explained elsewhere how the chemicals added to the ‘vaccine’ can cause SERIOUS health problems – even death.
Is your daughter considering having Gardasil – the cervical vaccine? Tell her not to – not only is it completely useless, but those same, SERIOUS, side effects are present.

But back to GM ‘foods’. ‘Feed the world’.
Actually, the hidden agenda is to strave it to death.
If you’re a farmer, skip the next bit, as you’ll know what I’m talking about.
In farming, it’s common practise to ’save the seed’ – ie, if, for example you harvest 20tons of barley, you retain sufficient to sow again next year – around 5% in this case.
Farmers do this all over the world, especially in poorer countries where a farmer may be unable to afford to buy fresh seed each year.
BUT, with GM crops, that’s just what he’ll have to do, as the modified crop does not usually produce seed capable of germination.
So, in a stroke, farmers who take up these crops will for evermore be under the control of the seed company (eg Monsanto).  Feed the world? Starve it to death, more like.
Remember the agenda of the Club of Rome (covered elsewhere on my site) – to reduce the world population by 90% !

Here’s a couple of links you may find interesting:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0rL68Qjs_c

                                         and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRYS2CjTRYk&feature=related

Have a good day!

Gerard.

This sort of hooligan-encouraging activity by the police is beyond a joke. Clearly the only way to get justice these days is not to call the police, but ‘deal’ with it yourself.
OK, the nonsense below happened in the UK, but don’t get too excited – remember our force is based on UK guidelines and has a UK Chief.

12th March 2010

When a restaurant owner found two teenage yobs raiding his beer cellar, he chased them and held them while his staff dialled 999.
Sal Miah assumed police would commend him for catching the young criminals, but when officers arrived they arrested 35-year-old Mr Miah on suspicion of assault and battery.

Sal Miah spent five hours in a police cell after he chased down two youths who had broken into his cellar The married father-of-five spent five hours in a police cell and had his DNA, fingerprints and police mugshot taken.

Mr Miah, who has run the Raj Poot restaurant in Crowborough, East Sussex, for 14 years, was finally released at 4am after receiving a caution for assault and battery, which will stay on his record for five years. He said: ‘The system is a joke. How can a man who tries to prevent a crime in progress end up being the criminal?
‘People are living in fear of these kind of yobs but when you do take a stand and try and defend your home or your business you end up in trouble.

‘It’s the wrong way round. These boys told the police I had punched them and they believed them.
‘This country is getting worse. You see these gangs tormenting people and they are just getting away with it. But who was looking out for my interests?
‘This has been an unbelievable stress and strain on my family. The uncle of one of the boys even came to the restaurant making threats that he was going to smash it up and burn it down.
‘But when I reported that the police said they couldn’t find him.’

Mr Miah’s ordeal began a fortnight ago when he heard the teenagers trying to smash their way into the beer cellar. They fled, but Mr Miah pursued them and managed to grab them and bring them back to the restaurant, where he sat them down by the bar. He told his diners not to worry and instructed staff to call the police, but as he did so a large group of the teenagers’ friends assembled outside and started to kick the door in.

Fearing for the safety of his customers, Mr Miah locked the door to prevent the ‘intimidating’ youths getting in, he said. He also went outside to stop them from breaking his windows and pushed several of them away.
But when the police arrived the youths accused Mr Miah of punching them and he was arrested.
As officers put him in the back of a patrol car, he said the laughing yobs hurled abuse and mocked him with shouts of ‘You’re nicked’. Mr Miah, who has no previous convictions, said: ‘I could not believe it.’ I had stopped a crime from happening and even delivered the suspects to police on a plate.’

Sussex police said Mr Miah should have ‘observed from a safe distance’ before dialling 999.    The spokesman said: ‘On no account should any attempt at aggression be made as this could easily escalate into violence.’   my comment - so Sussex police lack even the brains of a rocking-horse.

Here’s something I sent to the JEP, but they didn’t publish:

As if the grotesque and hideous eyesore that is the new incinerator building wasn’t bad enough, we now learn ‘it is likely’ Guernsey’s rubbish will be burnt here. I also note a figure of £120 / ton is quoted, meaning we would be subsidising our sister Island as well (running costs and plant amortisation will exceed that sum).

The whole incinerator issue has long smacked of corruption, incompetence – or a mixture of both, so I can only hope one of our more energetic States members (not many of those these days) will pursue this matter and request a Committee of Inquiry into this whole sorry affair. Not a four hour speech – just a simple Proposition with basic facts.

We know why the incinerator (a one-fingered salute to anyone visiting Jersey by sea) is where it is. The Bellozanne Covenant precluded the parishioners of St Helier being charged for rubbish disposal so, to enable equity when the Rubbish Tax arrives, it was necessary to build the new plant elsewhere.
And look at the size of it! About as big as Fort Regent.

What we don’t know – and never will without an Inquiry – is why we paid £100m when a world-renowned firm – Babcock & Wilcox – was willing to build it for £60m. It’s not as if they’re a small firm; just look them up on the internet.

Neither do we have satisfactory answers as to why a) modern technology was wilfully ignored, b) the unit is so large.

I was on the original Scrutiny Panel that looked into the whole matter, and many of the answers we received were either misleading or downright untrue. It makes one wonder what agenda was running in the background.

We now learn Jersey is ”likely to burn Guernsey’s rubbish”. Really? As Guernsey has allegedly decided to shelve plans for its own incinerator  (which will mean a multi-million pound compensation to contractors) they must be pretty sure of their ground.

The media tells us our Civil Servants are discussing the issue with their Guernsey counterparts and our ministers are not involved  (never mind the Jersey public). This matter is a POLICY, not an administrative, issue so here is the proof, as I’ve often argued – our Island is run by civil servants, not our elected politicians.

Ask yourself – if you were selling £60m worth of kit for £100m, how much would you ‘lubricate’ the deal?  1 %? 5%?  10%?   (5% = £5m).  And yes, civil servants have told me that contractors do offer ‘incentives’.  And let’s face it, for many unexplained issues locally, corruption is the only logical explanation. I hasten to add though, I only know of one or two examples. So the Island needs to ask, is this incinerator shambles corruption, incompetence, or a mixture of both? Only a Committee of Inquiry has the power to resolve that.

And if we find this issue truly has been driven by civil servants, then those involved should be disciplined and the minister(s) involved removed from office.

And finally – remember how we were told the incinerator had to be this big to have reserve emergency capacity? 
But out of the blue we’re now told we could accept Guernsey’s waste for TEN years (half the plant’s lifespan).
Guernsey will need some form of security, so we will need to guarantee we’d handle their waste without interruption. Essentially what that means is that there will be spare capacity INCLUDING burning Guernsey’s rubbish.
SO WE WERE LIED TO. Who would have guessed that!
I’ve always suspected there was some chicanery going on in the background – the usual ‘hidden agenda’. 
So what Babcock & Wilcox said was correct – the plant was too big – and grossly overpriced. But who cares? Evidently not our States members. After all, it’s only OUR money.

PS – I mentioned above that Babcock & Wilcox weren’t a small firm – they’ve traded world-wide since before WW2, have built hundreds of waste plants – and handle all America’s nuclear arsenal.  And would have built our incinerator for £60m, not £100m.

                                                                      ————–