Price, Beckham, and the value of opinions

On the State Radio this morning, we were treated to the illogical utterances of Matthew Price again. Apparently a Mr Beckham had been reported elsewhere in the media as having given his point of view about the Scottish independence referendum. Price questioned why anyone should care what Beckham thinks on the matter. Beckham's opinion is neither here nor there, according to Price.

Yet, strangely, we are forever being given the benefit of Price's views on so many things. We are constantly reminded that he likes show tunes, grammatical pedantry, but not chocolate or curry - something of an own goal (excuse the football reference in the circumstances) because, by constantly reaffirming how proud he is to be so very different to most of us, he is reinforcing our beliefs that he really is a very odd bloke.

So it's OK for Price to weigh in on just about anything that's up for discussion during his show, yet it's not OK for Beckham? Beckham being the rich, good looking (apparently) and successful man with whom many of us would be quite happy to trade places (I can't tell you how much my teeth were on edge typing "with whom" - no-one talks like that except human oddities) and Price is the guy for who many of us would say "err, no thanks" for the offer of a life swap, I suspect. Very strongly suspect..... but maybe I'm wrong? :) 

Having seen the fascinating documentary of Beckham's travels through a jungle with his friends, and liking the revelation of what the man is really like (away from the distortions purveyed by the 'accredited' media of the world) ...... I know who I'd rather spend an evening with, over several pints in a comfortable bar.

The Price isn't right!

Leah McGrath Goodman loses cred

I saw this on Clever Trevor's blog comments, after having read about it already on my usual daily news sites.

"It would appear that Leah McGrath Goodman has either just broken one of the biggest stories on the planet, or seriously overplayed her hand.

http://mag.newsweek.com/2014/03/14/bitcoin-satoshi-nakamoto.html

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/mar/07/satoshi-nakamoto-denies-inventing-bitcoin

On the sites where people get to comment, there has been a strong backlash against Leah, saying this was a very low thing to do. On one site I even found a predictable reference to HDLG :

"The journalist was sniffing around the island of Jersey because of alleged financial malfeasance and, more bizarrely, supposedly murdered children at the now infamous Haut la Garenne childrens home. I know from my reading on this matter that this is abject bollocks, and made me question her wisdom."
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2014/03/06/bitcoin_inventor_satoshi_nakamoto_revealed/

( a second story on The Register is about Nakamono's denial : http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/07/nakamono_man_denies_inventing_bitcoin/ )

The evidence for him being the inventor seems to be a matter of opinion, hardly anything concrete. Even if he was behind BTC, what right does Leah have to expose him? From being a champion of truth and justice, it seems she has immediately sunken to gutter press levels of self interest. So that's a big "Whoops!" and a blow for the cause of the abuse victims. How sad.

Maison de Ville in the sloppy news

More sloppy reporting again - the Maison de Ville care home is to close  - but where is it? Would it kill them to actually say, for those of us who may be hazy on such things?

Does the basic journalism of "Who, what, why, when, where?" no longer apply to our local media?

It's here on Google Maps (Streetview), up La Pouquelaye.

(btw, look at the website for the home at www.sthelier.je and compare the photo they've used with the view Streetview - looks familiar?! Can we wonder "copyright theft"?)

Oh, and as for the "nearby" St.Ewold's (maybe on the map, but it's still a long-ish indirect walk for even the fittest youngsters) that involves taking a right from Trinity Hill here (Streetview) and it looks like this (Streetview).

Digital Jersey Divide

Digital Jersey was set up to promote the island's digital economy and make the most of future IT opportunities. Would you expect membership to be open to anyone interested? No...... from a look at their website's registration page, we see that you have to be a Jersey-based company, partnership or sole trader.

• What if you're retired from the industry but still interested, wanting to have some input and pass on some of your wisdom accumulated over the years?
• What if you're currently out of work, hoping and waiting for the next IT job to come along - and would benefit from being able to attend their events to network and get your face known?
• What if you're 'just' an employee, not management?
• What if you work in another industry but want to switch, or are keenly interested for any reason?
• What if you're a student or school leaver also eager to embark on a Digital Jersey career?

Sorry.... but it looks like you're not welcome! Jersey's legendary lack of inclusivity strikes again. Just another one of those "them and us" divides that crop up all too often.

Stuart the Prophet of Doom - was he right?

On a day when the radio this morning mentioned the decline of Jersey's Trust Industry and the 2000+ unemployed are growing in number all the time, I vaguely remember back when Stuart Syvret started blogging in 2008 that he forecast the collapse of Jersey, mass unemployment, etc.

I have found it hard to find the real foretelling of doom, it may have been on other forums or website comment sections, but it's worth re-reading his earliest blog entry -
http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.co.uk/2008/01/introduction-to-microcosm-it-seems.html

.. and others -
http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.co.uk/2008/01/growing-problems.html

http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/in-your-name.html

http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.co.uk/2008/10/jersey-election-special-7.html
"an island so wrecked, expensive, and economically knackered that your children and grandchildren all emigrate."

So far we haven't had a total collapse, but one has to wonder just how close are we to a runaway "tipping point"?

Far too many people are out of work, and finding it impossible to find any, facing the loss of their home and the slide towards the state of having almost nothing left - the point at which Income Support may finally help you; once you've finally lost your home and seen your savings dwindle to 20% of sweet F.A. and need a States flat because you're out on the street, but sorry there's a waiting list as long as St.Catherine's breakwater.

All this, while reading in the paper that there are bucketloads of jobs available if only you were qualified enough to tick all the many boxes on the forms pushed around by the HR dept in question, and apparently jobs are easy to come by if only we weren't so lazy and were prepared to do those menial seasonal jobs that the European imports are so happy to do.

All very well doing a 'summer job' .... what happens in the autumn then? What use is that to someone with a mortgage to pay? Everyone I know says they are struggling, and there doesn't seem to be an end in sight.

So I'm wondering, how much of Stuart's Doom and Gloom was correct, 5 years ago, and can anyone provide any links to support their views?

Fire away!

Landslide 74% victory for Vote D

So, very nearly 3/4 of the voters supported the Option D that I promoted in my last post here - don't vote - showing their disdain for the flawed and risable electoral commission.

I win! :)

Except that I don't really win. The Establishment's hijacked commision (what happened to "independent"?!) will convince themselves that people who turned up to vote have more sway than those who made the decision not to legitimise the whole farce by making an appearance at the polling stations, so the results (that they rigged in their favour with the way the options and voting system were arranged) will be taken as a ringing endorsement of change. They will get their way, there will be less opposition to their domination of the States with the drop to 42 members, the popular and widely supported Senators will go (don't tell me support for Senators has just vanished into thin air since the last opinion poll showed a strong desire to keep them).....  their me-me-me right-wing "strong governement" will carry on downtreading the less fortunate while the gap between rich and poor widens even further.

WTF does "strong government" even mean, Mr Shenton? The most powerful group gets to bully the oppostion and get their own way no matter what? Is that really the best that democracy has to offer?

Jersey will remain apathetic to what the States manages to achieve. When all is said and done, politicians are still mainly loathsome creatures supported by the fools who vote for them. The correct way to handle politics is to stand well back and observe from a distance, then join specific campaigns for issues you really care about.

Politics in general is a seething mass of irrelevance that we just don't feel empowered to influence except for very specific areas of life where we have a chance of supporting a movement calling for some direction we want. That's the best we can hope for. We are resigned to letting them do what they do, and hoping that they don't mess things up so much that we have to demonstrate in the Square (not that even that helps much, either).

For me, the most amusing part of this charade was the proof that Ian Le M supporting something (Option C) was only enough to convince 19% of the electorate to visit the booths. He didn't do much to atttract voters to his point of view, did he? And, as Senator, his career in the States seems a little doomed.

Oh well. Life goes on. At least we still get to moan about it, whether people think we have a right to, or not.

Referen-dumb

On the 24th April we are invited to get tricked into -

• losing the 8 remaining Senators from the States
• seeing an overall drop in numbers from 49 down to 42 (with a drop in the backbenchers' power to outvote the ministerial bloc)
• losing the parish system and get six new meaningless 'super' districts instead (still unequal).

All of this is rolled up into both of the main choices A and B, dressed up as an apparent say in whether we lose les Connetables too, or keep them in.

I make that 4 different issues, but with 3 in common between just 2 so-called 'choices' A and B.

Or we have choice C : keep things the same as they are now.
Or D : Don't turn up.
Or E : Express Protest - actively go and spoil the paper.

As I don't want any of the 3 changes they're trying to sneak in, and don't really care about the constables either way,  that leaves me with a problem. Do I turn up and vote C, or spoil the paper, or stay well away from the whole hijacked waste of time?

Tough choice. Your opinions are welcomed ... what I should do, given my resistance to A and B (which won't be changing, so don't try to persuade me on that)?

Voting C 

This can be interpreted as "I'm happy with things as they are" - and I'm not. In addition to the proposed changes that I disagree with, I'm also just as concerned about -

• the unelected Bailiff's conflicted role.
• the quality of the idiots that get in, regardless of who votes for them (not much we can do, there).
• the Dean sitting in there, unelected. 

But none of that is addressed by this referendum.
As far as the issues in question -

• Island-wide mandate, Senators - I want them to remain. It's all I feel that I can actually have an effective say in.
• Numbers - the more the merrier - and I was mildly angry about the drop from 53. If we sort out the pay issue it doesn't matter how many there are. (I'd say don't pay them, most of them don't need it, let Income Support top up their income like the rest of us)
• Districts - I'd rather keep the parish voting districts as they are - and the small St.Mary 'problem' could be sorted out by having more Deputies everywhere else, especially if the Constables go...
• Constables - they can stand as Deputies if they want, what's the problem? The automatic seat doesn't feel right. What the point of a referendum on this? They can just go! It's not worth bothering the public asking us.

Voting D

Don't go - is tempting, but gets counted as Apathy. That still gives them a message, but seems like a waste somehow.

Voting E

Express Protest - can mean many things, so you have to hope they understand if you mean "You've wasted everyone's time, and I've made the effort to come here to say Go away and do it properly next time!".

Voting F

A variation on voting E, but a bit more forceful, would involve an expletive written on the paper, or perhaps a pictogram of an inflated phallus. But that's not advisable considering that the papers are numbered and can be cross referenced to your electoral roll number :)

Tough Choice

So C,D and E all give mixed messages, are all open to misinterpretation. It's a little difficult to choose!

I suspect that the turn out will be very low. So I'm not concerned about any of A,B or C winning out of less than half of the electorate. The slimeball politicos will use whatever result they get as a justification to get what they wanted, regardless.

 

The misguided A campaign

The 'A team' seem to have bees in their bonnets about equal numbers of votes, and getting rid of the constables. In their eagerness to grasp what they mistakenly think will make a difference (it won't!) they will be hoodwinked into achieving the classic "throwing out the baby with the bathwater".

As I've said, the constables don't really bother me enough to be an issue here. Ideally they should go, but not at the expense of the more vital things that we'd lose if we vote A. And yes, I've seen them vote "en bloc" and not "en bloc". It's not surprising that 12 people of the same personality type, with the same parish role, should agree fairly often. With their ear to the ground, connections and experiences, they are often more down to Earth and in touch with reality than the more "Despicable Right" of the super priviledged.

The A Team can't be argued with about the Troy Rule, the smaller number of 42 members meaning that the ministerial bloc (all the Big Cheeses and their lackeys) will outnumber the backbenchers, making opposition impossible. They naively think that will all work out fine in the end - despite depending upon the very outnumbering that will have happened in the meantime! So let's not dwell on that.

As for the representation, again I think that the A Team are making mountains out of molehills. So what if a St.Mary deputy has fewer votes behind them than a St.Clement one? It's just an opinion poll, with a smaller sample size. The greatest proportion has their way, regardless of numbers. The A Team might need to read up on statistics and poll sampling.

But the worst thing is, with Vote A we actually get less representation! I used to be able to vote for 14 (12 Senators, 1 Constable, 1 Deputy) out of 53 members - 24.6% of The House. This has dropped with the loss of 4 Senators to 10 of 49, which is now just 20.4%. With this 6 districts plan, I would get just 7 votes of the 42 - an all time low of 16.7% ... why should I even bother to turn up to the polling station for that? I would have to really believe in my 'opinion poll sample size' reasoning and trust my fellow islanders to do the right thing in the other 5 districts. Whatever happens, the same old opinionated bores will get in, with all their massive arrogance, blinkered against reality. Votes A or B won't change that in the slightest!

 

So... what?

What do I do? Turn up, don't turn up, write something sarcastic on the paper, or Vote C?

I want my action to be counted amongst the most likely actions of other people who feel like I do. I suspect most of them will vote C or stay away, and a spoilt paper will be a minority action that will get overlooked and ignored.

I think that staying well away from the whole charade will have the greatest impact. That way the entire referendum means less, because it's less representative. Let's face it, the whole thing is weighted against common sense, it is a pointless waste of space, so let's treat it that way.

It was bad enough that the 'independent' electoral commission was taken over by the Establishment (and with He Who Would Be King at the helm too!), but the 'choice' they have presented to us is anything but.

For my vote to count for something, it seems I'll have to treat this farce with the contempt it deserves. Which is a lot.