Wednesday, 30 May 2018

Interview with Reform Jersey's Senator-Elect Sam Mezec.

Senator-Elect Sam Mezec

Now that the dust has somewhat settled around the recent Jersey elections. VFC asked Senator-Elect Sam Mezec for his first, exclusive, in-depth, video recorded interview and kindly he agreed.

We wanted to ask Sam about his/Reform Jersey's campaign and how the negative,organised and funded smear campaign against his party had affected him and the party. What was the truth behind the nomination papers which saw two of Reform Jersey's Candidates being taken to court? What role did the "accredited" media play and what role did Social Media play during the election campaign and subsequently? Were the court cases accurately reported by the "accredited" media? The court cases deserve a Blog Posting of their very own and something we might return to.........If the MSM won't.

According to Senator-Elect Mezec at one stage the Solicitor General changed the whole case against them/their candidate overnight. Now where/when have we seen this happen before? Perhaps former Health Minister and whistleblower Stuart Syvret might have an idea? It sounds like the whole court business was a complete shambles but that's not how I recall the MSM reporting it. Indeed "shambles" is how it's described by Sam and something that could/should have been sorted out with a phone-call rather than the expense and intimidation of candidates.

We asked the question(s) that hasn't/haven't been asked by the MSM. Including; "is it really conceivable to believe that out of somewhere in the region of ninety six candidates only two (who just happen to be Reform Jersey candidates) of them made a mistake on the nomination papers? Did any other (establishment) candidate make any mistakes and get the phone-call from the parish to sort it out rather than a court summons?" I mean what are the chances/odds of that happening?

Further discussed in the interview below are subjects such as the Independent Election Observers who were overseeing our election process, fake news, MSM campaign against the threat (to the MSM) of Social Media, BBC bias and much more.............

Wednesday, 9 May 2018

Stuart Syvret Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Interview.

Former Health Minister/whistleblower Stuart Syvret

Political observers may be aware that the Jersey elections (or lack of) are being monitored (hopefully) by an independent Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA). They have been on the island since the 5th of May.

According to VOT.JE:

The Mission will observe:
. political campaigning
. electoral administration
. voter registration and accessibility
. candidate nomination
. polling (including postal and pre-polling)
. counting and tabulation
. post-election complaints or appeals

A preliminary report will be published within two days following the election to outline the initial findings. A closing report will be published within two months after the election making recommendations for electoral reform.(END)

Yesterday (Tues 8th May 2018) the CPA held a Press Conference at the State Building where the MSM, members of the public/Bloggers were welcome to attend and ask questions of the panel. Fellow Blogger TOM GRUCHY was in attendance and indeed filmed parts of the Press Conference published HERE. Also in attendance was former Senator/Health Minster/alleged political prisoner and whistleblower Stuart Syvret. Readers are encouraged to click on the link above where Mr. Syvret and Tom Gruchy demonstrate why the island needs an independent media (Bloggers) in order to get some questions asked.

Readers might not also be aware that the CPA is taking submissions from the public with their own observations concerning the electoral (or lack of) process in Jersey. We strongly urge those who have knowledge, or just observations, to contact the CPA at where we believe they would be happy to meet with you. Alternatively you can just make your submission on the e-mail.

Former Senator Syvret has been relatively quiet for quite some time now and the general feeling is that he fears illegal imprisonment from another secret court if he is seen attempting to rock the Jersey boat. That said he did grant Tom Gruchy an exclusive, in-depth interview, directly after the CPA Press Conference which we publish below.

We are told that Mr. Syvret will be making a comprehensive submission to the CPA as will a number of others including sitting and former politicians as well as Bloggers, members of the public, and hopefully readers of this Blog?

If you think there is something wrong with our electoral process, or indeed if you believe there is something right with it, then you should tell the CPA.

Sunday, 6 May 2018

Some of the Above. (NOTA 2)

In continuance of the previous PREVIOUS POSTING where an e-mail was sent to all candidates standing for Senator in the Jersey 2018 election. The e-mail asked the question(s) 

"1). would you support, or not, a “None of the Above” box on the Ballot Paper? 

2.) Using up to 800 words would you please explain why/why not?

3). If you DO support a “None of the Above” option and are elected/re-elected. Would you bring a proposition to the States to have it included on the Ballot Paper?"

Sixteen out of the seventeen candidates have now responded and their answers/e-mails (or parts of) are published below.

Firstly I would like to thank the candidates (or those that did) for taking time out of their busy schedules and answering the question(s). Readers (or I) might not agree with some of them but at least they are willing to engage and answer the question(s). 

Hopefully readers will find the answers useful when deciding who to vote for (or not) at the election.

The e-mails/replies are published, from top to bottom, in the order they were received. The first reply being at the top, and last, at the bottom.

Candidate Frank Luce
"Thank you for your email
The reason people do not vote is apathy they see the process will change nothing so why bother?
That was my opinion until the horrors perpetuated by this government have woken me up to try and influence change for a listening inclusive government
Actions speak louder than words if you don't vote there is no need to confirm it in writing

I think it is unnecessary and would not vote for its introduction !
Kind regards

Candidate Stevie Ocean

"Hi There
Very Interesting and those who can't be bothered the first to moan !What about in my case i have already achieved reeducating google by have the letters UK from all five of our Islands why because we are nit part of the UK fact that is also the objective with LinkedIn,Twitter,You Tube ,I already have my American Twitter followers starting a petition to make those mentioned recognise we & our other Islands are not part of the UK I was horrified to learn even royal.mail.need re-educating as they also believe the same this can be confirmed on the drop.down menu my address is a private house not here,I'm a man of action not promises or pledges read my manifesto i mean the expanded version I sent it to all media include your good selves and back in 2016 here was confusion of my name on the ballot paper it cost me votes through spoilt papers my fan club were threaten if they voted for me 1000 then so i would have had 1140 minimum finished in 4th place and would have done deal with Simon Cowell &Co so.when i decided to stand i made sure this wasn't going to happen again so a gov dept represented me and I'm not Peter Mac and with my Equity Card as back up proof and i have personal liability insurance of £10 million pounds yes and I made history the 1st person outside the States Assembly to change the law that is history.

Okay this is not Brewster's Millions when he has to spend $30m in 30 day to get his real inheritance of $300m great film how never you could do that copyright infringement and you would be sued a fact so i suggest not even joking tongue in cheek forget it as its not for that purpose as explain abd if you think I don't know what I'm talking about wrong i have be requested to stand on the executive council of equity for the forth time advice drop that angle now its in your best interests and you haven't got millions plus costs doing you a favor

Kind Regards"

Candidate Moz Scott

"Hi Nick

1) I would not support a None of the Above Box on the Ballot Paper

2) Such a box gives a voter an opportunity to vent frustration at 

• the quality of the candidates or
• the political system 

but it would not explain which.

Nor would it provide full information as the apathy that you have identified amongst Jersey’s voters already exists. Many people who do not vote would not bother to tick a ballot paper saying they do not want to vote.

You also do not suggest what is to be done with the additional information that your proposal would provide. It does not solve the problem that already exists.

It is best to focus on the political change needed to make voters feel better represented and to secure a better quality of candidate. The necessary measures to reform the States Assembly and the Council of Ministers are set out in my online manifesto (to be found at I would add to these a deposit system and a change to the current pay structure for States Members.

3. No, for the reason explained above. I would serve the Island better by focusing on the reforms described in the preceding paragraph.

A box of the nature that you describe could be useful as a way of testing the effectiveness of electoral reforms but would not achieve much in preceding them. 

Kind Regards"

Candidate Gordon-George-Troy

"Thank you for your email. In reply to your question:

1) I would not support a "none of the above box" on the ballot paper
2) We already have a "none of the above" opportunity, those people not voting meet this criteria. A "none of the above" box could cause confusion where a voter would put their cross voting for candidates they like and put a cross in the "none of the above" box, meaning they dont want to vote for the other candidates, this would render the ballot paper invalid.
3) No, I would not bring such a proposition to the States

Gordon George Troy
Candidate for Senator"

Candidate Phil Maguire

"Until recently, I wished there was a "None of the above" on every election form. Now I've modified my position. Instead, I think a candidate should only be allowed into government if they get a minimum percentage (say 10%) of the electorate to vote for them. This is not the number of people who voted but the number of people allowed to vote. So every person who doesn't vote becomes a vote of no confidence and candidates could not get in unopposed - their supporters would have to get off their arses and vote.

Yes, I would love to champion this or a better solution to the shambles we have now


Candidate Gerard Baudains

Hello Neil,

No, because it would serve no purpose. If you don’t want ‘any of the above’ then don’t put a cross by their name. Or you could write in ‘none of the above’ yourself, as the ballot paper would not be electing anyone anyway.
A more important point, one which perhaps escapes some, is that you don’t have to select 8 (in the senatorials) – just one if that’s the only candidate you want.

“Every election time we hear all kinds of “guesses” and “speculation” as to why the majority of the population will not engage with the electoral process and why there is somewhere in the region of a 70% voter abstention”.

That’s got considerably worse since the introduction of ministerial government. My manifesto hopefully explains the situation – ministers, not the States, are now our government and they are led by groups such as the Chamber of Commerce, instead of listening to the public.
To exacerbate the problem, the public realise that whoever they elect, nothing will change. They are right, because unless the candidate they elect becomes a minister, he / she is relegated to the back row where all election pledges, fresh ideas and bringing ‘change’ count for nothing.
We have a dictatorship, and in this election I’m trying to get the message across that unless we elect candidates committed to changing the system, nothing will change and we’ll all be having exactly the same conversation in four years time.

best regards,

Candidate Sarah Ferguson


If people are not prepared to vote then they should not complain. Alternatively they should stand for election. People died to get me my vote so I am going to use it.

This year is the first one since I came to Jersey in 1968 when we have a chance to oust the establishment party. So many of them have decided not to stand that we have a chance to get a government which has a change agenda and is prepared to move on it. What is more we have a number of candidates who are not only qualified but also competent to undertake government.

With great respect, I am expected to make decisions and not to duck them – if you don’t vote then you are ducking your responsibility.


Candidate Sam Mezec (Reform Jersey)

"1) Definitely not.

2) Voting "None of the Above" is an act of political surrender which does absolutely nothing to make Jersey a better place. If some people are aggrieved that they can't find any candidates they like, and can't even find the "least worst" candidate to support as a compromise, then they should try to do something positive about it, instead of insisting that they have the right to do what is the equivalent of throwing their toys out of the pram at the ballot box.

3) No, and we would vote against one if another member brought one."

Candidate Tracey Vallois

"Good morning Neil,

Thank you for your email.

It is disappointing that there are many that choose not to use their vote but, as you say, this is varying reasons and I have heard a few myself whilst out and about meeting people.

My answers to your specific questions are as follows
1) yes
2) not applicable
3) I would and have placed this on a to do list alongside a couple of issues that islanders have asked me address so far, should I be elected.
Kind regards"

Candidate Ian Gorst

"Dear Neil,

Thank you for your email.

I don’t agree with a law amendment.

I think we face a deeper problem which is not only about quality of candidates, but also about our system, about the number of States Members, about salary levels. These are the issues that the next States needs to make progress on.

Simply putting the option of non of the above will not solve voter turn out issues.

Best regards,"

Candidate Simon Bree

"Dear Mr McMurray,

Many thanks for your email of 21st April 2018, and my apologies about the slight delay in replying.

To answer the questions you posed:

1. I would not support a “None of the Above” box on the Ballot Paper.

2. Having such a box on the Ballot Paper would not, I believe, have any noticeable impact on the high levels of voter abstention that Jersey currently suffers from. People do not vote for a whole range of reasons, as you clearly indicate, but perhaps the two biggest reasons are that they “are happy with their lot”, and that there is no-one on the ballot paper that they would actually vote for. Those who are happy with their lot are unlikely to turn out to vote unless something radical happens on the political scene to make them change their minds. As to the people who do not feel there is anyone they would vote for, so why bother voting at all, this raises the question of the calibre and nature of candidates. To put yourself forward as a candidate is a very serious decision, knowing full well that you will more than likely come under extreme scrutiny – not only for your political views, but also as an individual. I am sure that for some this creates a major barrier to standing for election. But only by having a much more diverse and varied number of people standing, will, I believe, we ever manage to get over voter apathy. I stood for election as a Deputy because I wanted to make a difference to people’s lives, and improve everyone’s quality of life. I did not agree with the way that this Island was being run, so decided to put myself forward. This may sound to some as completely naïve, but it is true. And I would encourage anyone who feels the same, or who is angered by what they see happening around them, to do the same. Give people someone to vote for, if that is what you truly believe is the root cause of voter apathy. Stand up and be counted for what you truly believe in, but be prepared for close scrutiny, and at times, ridicule. But to have a “None of the Above” box on the Ballot Paper is making a mockery of those individuals who are prepared to stand for election, who are prepared to stand up for what they believe in. You may not like or agree with their political views, and you are perfectly at liberty to disagree with them using any form of communication you like, but at least they have put themselves forward for election. We need to find ways to encourage the electorate to turn out on polling day to make a “positive” vote, as opposed to a “negative” vote. And I seriously do not believe that having such a box on the Ballot Paper will encourage voters to turn out in any substainally greater numbers.

3. As you will have probably ascertained by now, should such a proposition be brought to the States Assembly, I would vote against it.


Candidate Steve Pallett

"Hi Neil 

My apologies for the delay in coming back to you, as you'll appreciate we are all very busy at the moment! 

In answer to your questions:

1. I would not support a ‘NOTA’ on the ballot paper until the public are fully consulted on their views and further research is undertaken.

2. Casting a vote for NOTA is seen as a way of protesting against the poor quality of candidates in any election. Although a strong vote on NOTA may well be a ‘slap in the face' for those putting their names forward and potentially a moral victory for disaffected voters, I do not believe that NOTA will be a driving force for change in throwing up better candidates.

I believe that a deposit system (small amount) is far more likely to deter people from standing if it is linked to having to obtain a percentage of the vote or you lose your deposit.

To attract better candidates the role of a States Member must be seen as more attractive than it currently is and may require some roles to have a better remuneration package.

NOTA is, I believe, more likely to deter better candidates than attract them (considering that some States Members have already retired due to the personal abuse aimed at both themselves and their families). I think it likely that abuse of all kinds, the lack of support and the current remuneration is either stopping or preventing better candidates from standing.

NOTA will only add to the negativity around elections when we need to be far more positive and encourage more civic participation in our elections.

3. No I would not bring a proposition as I think this is a matter for the Priveleges and Procedure to consider and then if necessary take to the States.

Kind Regards" 

Candidate Gino Risoli

"hi Neal.
I can understand your frustration but as you know I am determined to make our finances accountable online. I believe this would entirely change Jersey politics. Regards" 

Candidate Lyndon Farnham

"Dear Mr McMurray,

In response to your questions.

1. I would support, in principle, a proposal to add a ‘none of the above’ option to the Ballot Paper unless presented with an overwhelming reason not to (I can’t think of one at present).

2. I did bring an amendment to add a ‘none of the above’ option to the referendum questions on Electoral Reform (Option A, B or C) but it was rejected by the Assembly. I am not totally clear on the advantages or disadvantages of adding it to the Ballot Paper other than to suggest that it could provide a clearer picture on voter apathy. For example, it would no longer be an excuse not to vote on the grounds that you did not support any of the declared candidates.

3. I think a proposition of this nature should be presented to the Assembly by the Privileges and Procedures Committee to stand the best chance of being accepted.

Apologies again for the delay in reply.

With kind regards,"

Candidate John Le Fondre

"Dear Neil

Apologies for delay in responding.

In general terms the comment you make is valid, ie that there are electors who do attend to exercise their vote, but do strike a line through the entire ballot slip, so I take the point, and I also note that this is raised in a number of jurisdictions across the globe. 

The problem is how you could implement this in practice, and what would be the consequences. Equally, should you have 'none of the above' and 'none of the rest' [voters sometimes find they can only find 1 or 2 candidates from the number that they are entitled to vote for].

So before I made any commitment to changing the voting slip I would want to know any potential consequences ; and whether this was actually practical.

However I do note that there are apparently a number of countries that permit this option, including some parts of Canada (and 1 State in the USA) , and also France (although I gather that this is not a 'formal' process whereby a 'NOTA' vote would be counted separately). 

In short, not against the suggestion ; would want to understand the practicalities.

I would also like the States to reconsider the position on candidates paying some form of deposit.

Hope that helps"

Candidate Kristina Moore

"Thank you for your question and please excuse any delay, you may appreciate that we have many people sending us questions and we try our best to respond as we can.

Essentially my answer would be yes, but this is not going to be high on my list of things to achieve. At the relevant moment, ie when we come to discuss reform of the assembly and electoral process I would be happy to ensure that it is included."(END)

Candidate Ant Lewis

After two weeks, two e-mails, and a tweet, Candidate Ant Lewis has not yet answered the questions. After I sent all candidates a reminder e-mail Mr. Lewis did respond (11 days ago) by saying:


Thank you.
Best wishes,


Should Mr. Lewis answer the question(s) then they will be considered for publication in the comment section of this Blog Posting.