Will political decisions made during the pandemic bring about change to Jersey politics?
Colin Lever raises the threat of voter apathy come 2022 election time
When a political party has a large majority, it has a mandate to make changes with impunity. The mechanism of democracy that put it there, inadvertently compromises the normal checks and balances to ensure that the party leadership does not overstep its authority. There are unwritten rules, protocols and guidelines that are adhered to, but modern politics seems to have dispensed with such ‘agreements’. Unscrupulous leaders have ditched diplomacy, manipulating positions of power to their advantage. In so doing, they marginalise democracy, substituting it with plutocracy. Donald Trump is perhaps the most extreme example, with BJ (aka Dominic Cummings) a poor imitation.
John le Fondre, the Chief Minister of Jersey, does not have anything like the same charisma as those two heavyweights. In many ways, he is the total opposite, uncomfortable in front of the media, and hesitant. Thrust into the limelight because of the pandemic, he has quietly, maybe unconsciously, created a political coup d’etat within the island’s present government.
From the outset of the pandemic, the media have been scathing of his leadership, often describing him as weak and dithering. Others have since accused him of failing in terms of risk management in respect of managing the crisis, misogyny, institutionalised racism, lack of a social conscience, putting business before the wellbeing of residents, and making a mockery of the island’s foremost aim of ‘putting children’ first. Opposition politicians have had to fight for access to the minutes of the Science, Technology, Advisory Cell. Minutes that were not released until months later, revealing situations where Senator le Fondre and his ‘team’ have been found to ignore or dilute scientific advice. The principle of neglect has even been raised.
Negligence is described as the failure to act in a way, with prudence or reasonable care, under specific circumstances. There are varying degrees of negligence, one of them being ‘wilful, wanton, reckless conduct’. Is Senator Le Fondre culpable? According to Upcounsel, the two main differences between negligence and wilful, wanton, reckless conduct is:
· The defendant intentionally or knowingly disregarded all risk
· The risk would most likely result in substantial harm
In an article in the Bailiwick Express an opinion writer has likened Senator Le Fondre’s actions to a “Desperate Gambler putting everything on red.”
Earlier in the piece they observe that the government’s decision to suppress and control was based on a risk management decision to go for what was practicable rather than what was achievable (namely virus elimination). It goes on to say that, in finance (The Chief Minister’s previous employment), they have tight controls and utilise independent departments to assess ‘risk tolerance’. Namely, ‘you only bet what you can afford to lose’. ‘In opening the borders’, the writer claims, that Senator Le Fondre ‘failed to define risk tolerance and controls’.
“In financial circles when there is turmoil in the economy, you tend towards tightening your risk control, our government did the opposite.” (referring to altering the threshold of Amber countries, despite the advice from STAC).
Has the Chief Minister and the Council of Minister’s left themselves open to legal action? In Italy, a group of families who have lost loved ones to COVID-19 are suing their ex-Prime Minister, Guiseppe Conti, for €100 million. This is also happening in the UK. Jersey has, per capita, one of the highest death rates due to COVID-19, in the world.
“You bet only what you can afford to lose. It is lives that our government are betting on, currently” — opinion writer in the Bailiwick Express
At the beginning of this second wave, Deputy Richard Renouf, stood in front of the island’s media and stated that “Lives will be lost!” He was not wrong. However, many of these deaths could have been avoided if the Council of Ministers had acted ‘more decisively’. Will there be a reckoning?
At the time of writing, numbers of active cases have fallen below 50. With mass vaccination ahead of schedule, it would appear that the Chief Minister and his followers are well placed to pull off the impossible. Does that mean that the end justifies the means? That such irresponsibility was the best course of action for the island’s residents? There has never been an apology to the bereaved families.
The prognosis is that the economy will bounce back strongly, yet there is no recognition of the price that has been paid. There is the issue of long-COVID, yet to emerge. There are the un-measurables, the damage done to health and wellbeing, jobs, careers, businesses. There is a lot of accounting to be done but will anybody ever be held to account? Will all this destruction just be flotsam and jetsam, left in the wake of the tsunami that hit the world in 2020? Most will be so relieved if, and when, we can return to normal. In the collective sighs of relief, past misdemeanours are likely to be forgiven, mainly because few will have the energy to continue the fight, and those that do will just sound like empty vessels.
Senator Le Fondre’s legacy amounts to a damning indictment of his tenure. In November of 2020, a vote of no confidence was brought against him. Around that time three ministers resigned their posts and a fourth is on the cusp of doing the same. Brigadier Hall, a veteran of managing crises in the world’s hot spots, recently suggested that the Chief Minister should have gathered around him a cross section of the great and good in society, to tackle the pandemic. “This is not a time for partisan politics”, he said. But the Council of Ministers’ is just that, especially so after the spate of resignations. If this was not enough, the Chief Minister created the ‘Competent Authority’ group of ministers, where just three ministers, himself plus two others, have given themselves the power to make executive decisions. It has been rumoured that they call themselves the ‘Cabal’. A more fitting description would be the ‘Untouchables’.
Jersey’s government is made up of forty-nine elected members. Most stood as independents, each having their own ‘manifesto’. The only political party is Reform Jersey, who have five elected members. Of course, there are allegiances, the twelve parish constables tend to vote collectively and there are other, loose ‘associations’. A study of the voting on key issues relating to social welfare, however, shows that the government is divided into two factions. Those with a social conscience and those without. The numbers on each side are not so far apart but the latter generally have a three fifths majority. This majority is influenced principally by business and finance. Some are conservative with a small ‘c’, others are more extreme. They share an ideology along with most of their un-elected, civil-servant, advisors. Many were previously employed in the business and finance sector.
Factor in the powerful business and finance lobby and what you get is a government that puts the economy before anything else.
For example, the decision not to close the border is about maintaining business ‘connectivity’. In summer it was about shoring up the hospitality sector, despite advice from STAC. Once more, when numbers were rising in September, there was a reluctance to close local businesses. Even when the spike became exponential, John Le Fondre and co. hesitated despite scientific advice to act quickly. The argument over whether schools should open or shut was dictated by the needs of business and not so much for the safety of staff and pupils. Although they hid behind the plausibility of pupil’s ‘wellbeing’ and loss of education. A classic piece of obfuscation. The ministers that chose to resign spoke of ‘being ignored’ and of being told to ‘shut up’. Dissenting voices are not welcome around the ministerial table. In her letter of resignation, the education minister stated:
“I believe it is in everyone’s interest that I resign as Education Minister. This will give you the opportunity to have a Minister on board who will hopefully be more closely aligned to how the government wish to continue”
Their absence will not be missed. In his speech following his victory in the VONC, John Le Fondre alluded to a ‘vocal minority’. And that is all the opposition amount to, a vocal minority. What should be of more concern to the public is the silent majority. Few come out into the public arena to declare their support for Senator Le Fondre, most take a back seat, only showing their hand when it comes to the vote. How committed they are to the job or how much they are hedging political bets is not clear, but their silence is deafening. The opinion writer in the Bailiwick Express observes:
“The Council of Minister’s have so much personally invested in the current strategy that they cannot see the wood for the trees. Like a poor trader or gambler, they are chasing their losses.”
Following the VONC victory, the Chief Minister’s hand has been strengthened. He has the certainty that the majority of those in the assembly follow him blindly. He has become emboldened. John Le Fondre is no longer an object of political ridicule. Notice how he tried to push through the alterations to Westmount Road, without consultation. And his latest gambit, agreeing a deal with Dandara regarding Cyril le Marquand House, without adhering to due diligence. These are not the actions of a leader committed to the democratic process.
There are few who would envy the Chief Minister’s job. Those around him that sought to step into his shoes, post election, are eerily quiet. It is easy to criticise from the side-lines. Could I or anyone else do any better? We will never get the chance; such is the grip that he and his acolytes have on government at the moment. Twitterers tweet and Facebook users gossip, many with valid criticisms and suggestions. All are summarily dismissed. This man is not for turning. When you are in the vanguard, fighting a war against an invisible foe, you must be steadfast, resolute, despite the not so friendly fire that whistles past your ear. Should his stubbornness be lauded or is he just a puppet, controlled by his faceless advisors.
There have long been complaints about the States assembly. From those who hark back to the days of unpaid landowners taking charge, to the present-day issues of lack of diversity, gender inequality and political inertia. Arguably, the opposition to the present status quo contains our most talented public servants. Established figures like Kristina Moore and Sam Mezec, and new kids on the block like Jess Perchard and Rob Ward. All of them have drive, determination and integrity, committed to serving the island’s public. But many are frustrated at the lack of movement. Issues such as affordable housing, the environment, population control and numerous other pressing problems are all put on the back burner. Few of these are ever likely to see the light of day, unless they become economically viable.
Voter apathy is, ultimately, what keeps the likes of John Le Fondre and his ilk, in power. Only around 33% of those eligible to vote choose to do so. Of this cohort the majority are conservative minded. In 2022 when they step out to vote, they will no doubt be forgiving of John Le Fondre, believing that, on the whole, he did the best he could in a difficult situation. It is unlikely that the Senator will be hounded out of office but rather celebrated as a hero. The wet blanket that he has lain over the island, smothers all beneath it, creating apathy and disillusionment. What is likely in 2022, is that the island will get more of the same. Pale, male, stale, accountants that refuse to take account of the island’s needs, other than those issues that are economic. Jersey is unlikely to ever get a truly representative government until the opposition present the public with an alternative vision that will motivate them to come out in numbers and vote. What is that alternative vision?
