Bid to make Chief Minister selection a public vote only receives a single backer... the proposer
A former Jersey Chief Minister has failed in their bid to change how the person for the top job is selected.
Deputy Kristina Moore proposed that the Chief Minister should be elected through an island-wide vote, which would be held in parallel with the General Election, rather than being selected after polling day by fellow politicians.
However, not a single one of her colleagues supported the move - with 43 votes against. Deputy Moore was the only one to vote in favour.
Deputy Sir Philip Bailhache called the plan "entirely unworkable".
The Housing Minister, Deputy Sam Mézec, commended Deputy Moore for looking to change the electoral system, which he described as "inadequate".
However, he concluded that the proposition "had more holes than a sieve" and "would lead ultimately to chaos".
Deputy Philip Ozouf said, "Unlike other members, I'm a Jerseyman and I respect Jersey traditions".
After a number of opposing speeches, Deputy Montfort Tadier added, "Do we need any more reasons not to vote for this?"
Before the vote, Deputy Moore said, "If nothing else, this proposition has got people talking - not us in here, but those people outside who we represent.
"Ultimately, this is a proposal aimed at increasing our voter engagement and improving transparency in our democratic system."
It took an hour for the decision to be reached as a total of 10 speeches were made during the proposition debate.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
14 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
All change after Hamilton – but not perhaps in the way you expect
To elect is, literally, to choose. And people in this by-election have chosen, narrowly, to put their faith in Labour's Davy Russell, who fought a doorstep campaign, remote from media concerns. This was the change contest. Understandably pleased, the Prime Minister hailed a 'fantastic victory' for Labour – before adding that 'people in Scotland had once again voted for change.' Read more Brian Taylor I think that is true but I suspect it may not be quite the change advanced by Sir Keir Starmer. I understand his perspective. He is seeking to fit Hamilton into the wider Starmer narrative. You will recall that, at the July UK General Election, Sir Keir repeatedly offered 'change'. His aim was to gain from the discontent – no, the loathing – which had attached itself to the Conservatives. To posit Labour as the remedy, without being all that specific about details. So, with these comments on Hamilton, he is seeking to suggest that Davy Russell's victory is, in some way, continuity: an endorsement of the approach pursued by his government. To repeat, I understand his motivation in so doing. But I am certain that this is awry. You have only to listen to senior figures from Scottish Labour to grasp that Hamilton disquiet was aimed at incumbency. The SNP at Holyrood, yes. But also Labour at Westminster. Broadcasting to an astonished nation on the wireless, I was most struck by Labour MSP Paul Sweeney who disclosed candidly that he had experienced 'pretty grim conversations' with voters. Despite those doorstep difficulties, Labour contrived to oust the defending SNP. Incidentally, only the third time the incumbents have lost in the twelve Holyrood by-elections which have taken place since devolution. But Labour's Scottish leader, Anas Sarwar, knows this fell far short of an enthusiastic vote of confidence. He knows people want much more from Team Starmer. He knows they are upset over the economy and benefit curbs. Still, that Labour victory does represent change. The ousting of the SNP. Which itself demands a further change. John Swinney acknowledged as much at his news conference. His party, he said, had made some progress – but not enough. The aim now must be to address the priorities of the people, specifically the cost of living and NHS waiting times. He was accused by Labour's Anas Sarwar of seeking to drive voters towards Reform UK. Again an understandable point, but not entirely valid. Certainly, Mr Swinney suggested that the by-election was a two-horse race between the SNP and Nigel Farage's party. In so doing, he was seeking to polarise the contest, to pitch his party as the ones to stop the seemingly resurgent Reform, aware that Labour had comfortably outpolled the SNP at the UK election last year. Sir Keir Starmer is keen to tie the by-election into a wider story about Labour (Image: free) It was, in short, a strategy rather than a forecast. Nevertheless, the SNP came up short – and a degree of humility can now be expected from the First Minister. So he too must change the SNP formula. To a substantial degree, he already has, concentrating upon popular priorities such as the NHS, while sidelining issues such as gender. Some within the SNP may question Mr Swinney's own judgement. I suspect, however, that the majority will back his determination to focus firmly upon the economy and public service delivery. If there was even a fragment of complacency in the SNP leadership, it has been utterly expunged by Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. Might this result also sideline the issue of independence, as the campaign group Scotland in Union suggest? Not in those terms. John Swinney will continue to pitch independence as a solution to persistent problems. But I expect he will primarily concentrate upon the problems themselves. Listening, in short, to voters. That emphasis may further disadvantage the Tories who tend to do well at Holyrood when they can depict themselves as the stalwart defenders of a threatened union. However, there are other changes to consider. Labour's vote is well down on the UK General Election in this area and on their by-election showing in Rutherglen and Hamilton West. Folk are scunnered with the SNP. But they are also unhappy with the PM and the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves. If she doubts that, perhaps she could have a word with her Commons aide, Imogen Walker. The MP for Hamilton and Clyde Valley. So Anas Sarwar will pursue a twin strategy. Gently, diplomatically urging his Westminster colleagues to pursue policies which palpably help voters. While at the same time offering to change the government at Holyrood. Pitching himself as the sole contender to oust Mr Swinney. Seeking to marginalise rivals. Another change is the emergence of Reform. They came a creditable third, consigning the Tories to a whimpering fourth. Indeed, they got a higher percentage in this area than the Tories have historically managed. A sign perhaps that Reform can appeal to a wider range of voters, also eating into Labour and SNP support. Read more But will that endure? Or will Reform fall back again, perhaps beset by the internal divisions which emerged sharply on polling day itself when their chairman, Scots-born Zia Yousuf, resigned? On quitting, he said that he no longer wished to devote his time to installing Nigel Farage in Downing Street. He was also less than delighted with the new Reform MP Sarah Pochin who said in the Commons that the burka should be banned. However, the Tories are not exactly exempt from internal division, at Westminster and Holyrood. They must simply strive to recover from this by-election nadir – and hope that Reform will subside. Does this by-election change expectations of the Holyrood outcome next year? In itself, no. It tells us that voters are scunnered. But then you already knew that. It tells us that folk want and expect change. They want an easing of this age of anxiety. But then you knew that too. Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre - and Dundee United FC
The Herald Scotland
15 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
So now you know, SNP: indy is not what people care about
There may have been little talk of independence in the campaign but Katy Loudon, the SNP candidate, put out a Facebook video on the morning of the by-election which made clear it's all about separating us from the rest of the UK. The unionist parties' share of the vote at the by-election was just short of 66%. If that doesn't send a clear message to the SNP and the Greens that independence is not what is important at the moment, I don't know what will. Maybe if the SNP improved our NHS, our education system, housing, our infrastructure, managed to build ferries and dual our roads on time and improve our economy, it might get more support. That would be novel, would it not? Jane Lax, Aberlour. Nothing short of humiliation It wasn't only the kitchen sink that the SNP flung at the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election. It threw the washing machine, tumble drier and dishwasher as well. Anyone who saw on social media the gangs of SNP enthusiasts roaming the constituency, saturating it with MSPs including ministers, as well as foot soldiers, with a massive intensity, for weeks and especially in the last two weeks, must have imagined that it was a seat they could not lose. I wondered, in the last days, whether the SNP was not engaging in overkill, that the good folk of the constituency might be saturated with SNP propaganda to the point of apathy. The turnout, at 44 per cent, suggested that as a partial possibility. In this by-election, it was possible to utilise all the party's resources, and it did. That would not be remotely a possibility in any one constituency in a General Election. The result was nothing short of humiliation for the SNP. It is also a personal humiliation for John Swinney, who spent much time in the last week campaigning in the constituency rather than attending to First Minister's business. Nothing much will change at Holyrood, of course, but Mr Swinney's insistence that Scotland does not welcome Reform UK looks a bit hollow after it scooped up 26 per cent of the vote. Perhaps we can have a break from his preaching about Scotland being allegedly more moral than England. Ah well, one can but hope. Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh. Read more letters For many, politics is not working It is alarming that, in Thursday's by-election, Reform UK came third with 7,088 votes, a mere 1,471 behind Labour. The victorious Labour candidate, Davy Russell, is quoted as saying that 'this community has [also] sent a message to Farage and his mob tonight. The poison of Reform isn't us – it isn't Scotland and we don't want your division here.' I suspect Mr Russell was speaking from within the excitement of winning and did not realise the significance of Reform UK winning so many votes. The party of Nigel Farage, that enthusiastic Trump supporter, was understood to hold little attraction for the Scottish voter compared with his standing with the English electorate. The Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse voters have demonstrated otherwise. The UK political establishment, Labour in particular, has one important lesson to learn, that being that politics in our country is not working for a significant element of our population. The vote for a disastrous Brexit was the first warning sign of a significant discontent with the inequalities and injustices in our society and economy. Uncontrolled neoliberalism has done untold damage to our social contract with our politicians accepting unquestionably the words of Mrs Thatcher, 'there is no alternative'. John Milne, Uddingston. Reform will be a Holyrood force The most interesting thing about the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election for Holyrood is not who won, Labour, nor the fact that the voting was a three-way split between it, the SNP and Reform UK, but where Reform's votes came from. Compared to its vote share in the constituency in the last Holyrood election four years ago, the SNP vote dropped by almost 17% of the votes cast and the Tory vote by 11.5%. Labour's vote share actually went down by 2% as well. This means that Reform UK's 26% of the vote came more from parties of the left than the Tories. Clearly Reform is not just a threat to the Conservatives. In the climate of dissatisfaction with the established parties, Reform is on track to be a force at Holyrood next year. Otto Inglis, Crossgates, Fife. • After all the ballyhoo, the result is in and the real winner is Reform UK. John Swinney talked Reform up too effectively. Labour's candidate was nearly invisible. The result speaks volumes. The SNP lost. Labour just limped home despite being helped a huge amount by the SNP's travails. Reform UK came from a near-zero base to gain over 7,000 votes and run both other parties close. This by-election was a real test of public opinion for the shape of Holyrood in 2026. Reform could still founder given frequent party in-fighting. Equally the Tories could re-assert their desired position as defenders of the Union. John Swinney has made another major SNP blunder and released the genie from the bottle. Is he going to be the architect of the SNP's downfall? Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow. Labour far from home and hosed While Labour's victory in the Hamilton by-election seemingly points to the party winning the Scottish Parliament elections next year, if I were Anas Sarwar, I wouldn't be sizing up the curtains of Bute House just yet. The seat was won comfortably by the SNP in the last Scottish Parliament election in 2021 and is just the sort of seat that Labour needs to win if Anas Sarwar is to become Scotland's next First Minister. The SNP has made little progress in restoring its fortunes following its heavy defeat in last summer's Westminster election, with polls suggesting that the party's support across Scotland is still 15 points down on its tally in 2021. In the event, the fall in the party's support in Hamilton was, at 17 points, just a little higher than that. However, Labour's own tally was also down by two points on its vote in 2021, when overall the party came a disappointing third. That drop was very much in line with recent polling, which puts the party at just 19 per cent across Scotland as a whole, while the SNP has around a third of the vote. In addition, Labour is losing somewhere between one in six and one in five of its voters to Reform since last year's election. After nearly two decades in the political wilderness, there is little sign that Labour, as it currently stands, is set to regain the reins of power at Holyrood. Alex Orr, Edinburgh. Now flesh out the policies All the pundits initially claimed the Hamilton by-election would go to Labour, given local circumstances. Now a Labour win is described as a 'shock' after even some in Labour were describing their own candidate as not up to the job. But Labour needs to up its game for the next election. Criticism is easy, but Labour needs more fleshed-out policies for government, beyond centralising health in Scotland. The SNP needs to drop all the 'student politics' stuff; it was embarrassing to see a squabble over £2 million when it should be asking why Scotland does so poorly on defence procurement and jobs. Formulate a proper industrial policy for Scotland, and back any project that would enhance jobs and prosperity for Scotland. Refuse nothing and put the onus on unionists to explain their plans in detail. Trident: are the unionist plans for keeping Trident in Scotland similar to those for Diego Garcia? Nuclear power: why do they think Scotland should have it, given its high-cost electricity and the extensive lags on construction? What of waste disposal and site security? The SNP should be in favour of local pricing for electricity as a draw to attract jobs, and for North Sea oil/gas production (until Scots are empowered to decide its future). A Labour/SNP coalition? It looks like the only feasible outcome. GR Weir, Ochiltree. • For all the fuss about the Hamilton by-election, it should be noted that almost 56% of the electorate really don't care who represents them in the Scottish Parliament. Malcolm Parkin, Kinross. Russia claim is baseless Brian Wilson ("Yes, we should stand firm over Putin, but let's not make Russia our implacable foe", The Herald, June 5) tells us today that the rights of the former Soviet republics to seek security (membership of Nato) should have been balanced against Russian fears of encirclement. This raises two issues. Firstly, the Soviet Union consisted of 15 republics: the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (Russia itself) and 14 others. Of these, only three (the Baltic states,which were independent between the wars) have joined Nato. I am unclear as to how this constitutes encirclement. Does Mr Wilson envisage the Central Asian former republics (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan etc) expressing a wish to join the alliance at some point, thus making encirclement a reality rather than a baseless claim? Secondly, does Mr Wilson not wonder why these small countries wished to be under the umbrella of the Nato alliance? To avoid the current fate of Ukraine perhaps? Alan Jenkins, Glasgow. • Brian Wilson expresses the hope that we should not categorise the Russian people as being inevitably in the enemy camp. He concluded his article by observing that narratives about Russia should have "due regard to past history and also future potential for peaceful co-existence". Such narratives should certainly not fail to take account of the contribution made by Russian armed forces and the civilian population during the Second World War, which is estimated to have resulted in some 25 million Soviet deaths. It is clear that the Russian effort during that war was profoundly influential in assisting toward the eventual defeat of Germany. The Russian people at the time called upon impressive levels of love of country and perseverance in the fight toward victory over a formidable enemy. Once we were allies. While Russia remains in the firm grip of the dictatorial, ambitious and ruthless Vladimir Putin, it is difficult to see to what extent meaningful steps can be taken to pursue the "potential for peaceful co-existence". Ian W Thomson, Lenzie. A Pride rally in Glasgow (Image: PA) Pride needed now as much as ever Gregor McKenzie (Letters, June 6) suggests that LGBT Pride has had its day. In fact, since the end of the pandemic restrictions, more people have been going to more Pride events across Scotland than ever before. Why? I think it's in part because people see how, after several positive changes in the law for LGBT people in the past 25 years, things are now starting to get worse again. Mr McKenzie asks why we can't all just let people be, and I wish we could. But the increased restrictions being introduced on trans people in the UK are quite the opposite of that. Trans people just want to get on with their lives, but the new rules make that much more difficult. And trans people are constantly maligned currently by some parts of the media. So Pride events are needed as much now as ever. They are a celebration of how far we have come in the 30 years since the first Pride Scotland, and they are a protest against the regression we're seeing now. One day perhaps Pride will be solely a celebration, but that day still seems some way off. Meanwhile people join together in the streets to say "Not going back". Tim Hopkins, Edinburgh.
New Statesman
15 hours ago
- New Statesman
The eco-centrists want the Green Party back
In last year's General Election, the Green Party quadrupled its representation in parliament (from one in 2019 to four in 2024, albeit). Caroline Lucas, elected in 2010, was for a long time the party's only MP. After years of the Green's representation in Parliament resting solely on Lucas's shoulders, July 2024 was a turning-point. 'I spoke in the House of Commons five times yesterday, on a range of topics,' Ellie Chowns, the Green MP for Northwest Herefordshire told me when we met on a drab evening at a café in St James's Park. 'We as Greens have got a much stronger voice [in Parliament] speaking day in day out on the issues that really matter,' Chowns said. Alongside her, Adrian Ramsay, the Green MP for Waveney Valley nodded. During our 45-minute interview, we were all variously forced to dodge the pigeons who kept flying dangerously close overhead. Ramsay has been the current co-leader of the party, alongside Carla Denyer, the Green MP for Bristol Central since 2021. But their term is almost up; the party will hold a leadership election later this year. While Denyer has decided not to re-contest, Ramsay, who has been a Green Party politician since 2003 felt he isn't done yet. He is running once again to be co-leader of the party once again, with Chowns as his co-star. Chowns and Ramsay's pitch to Green Party members is simple: a vote for them is a vote for two experienced leaders, who already have a position inside parliament and a proven track-record of winning elections .'We're the only candidates in this [leadership] election who have won under first-past-the-post,' Ramsay told me, 'and we want to build on that success, it is about substance.' He added: 'Anyone can say that they want to be popular,' Ramsay said, 'we've shown how you actually do it.' Chowns agreed: 'The only way to change politics is by winning more seats in the system,' she said, 'and Adrian and I have shown how to do that. You build the biggest possible coalition of voters.' The pair have received backing for precisely this reason from Green Party Grandees such as Lucas and Baroness Jenny Jones. This is all no uncertain dig at the pair's main competition: current deputy leader, Zack Polanski. Shortly after the May local elections, in which the party won an additional 181 councillors, current Polanski, launched a (not so surprise) solo-leadership campaign. His platform of 'eco-populism' has exposed a split in the party between the radical left wing (which Chowns and Ramsay indirectly describe as 'loudhailer politics') and those who want to appeal to a wider base, including former Conservative voters. Ramsay is irked by Polanski's decision to run. The current co-leader, who wrote the Green Party's handbook on how to win council elections, has spent most of his political career working out how to turn the party from a fringe group into a force capable of winning Parliamentary elections. The election of an additional three Green MPs last year, was the culmination of this, or so he says. Polanski's wants to position the Greens as a left-wing mirror to Nigel Farage and Reform. In fact, when I spoke to him shortly after he launched his leadership bid in May, Polanski said he may even actually 'agree' with some of 'Nigel Farage's diagnosis of the problems' . Chowns and Ramsay think this is the wrong approach. 'We've already demonstrated how ecological ideas can be popular,' Chowns said. She added: 'I don't aspire for the Green Party to ape Reform in any way neither in its content, not its style…We can't out shout Reform.' Polanski is a member of the Greater London Assembly, but if he is elected he will sit outside the machinations of Westminster; an arrangement which could cause more trouble than it's worth. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe 'There are some major pitfalls that would need to be addressed here,' Ramsay said, 'journalists look to what's happening in parliament to see where each party stands on the issue of the day because parliament is the centre of British political debate.' Having a leader outside of Westminster could become particularly troublesome if there is a disagreement between the party's leadership and its MPs. In some ways, this has already happened. Polanski has said the UK should withdraw from NATO, a policy which neither Ramsay nor Chowns support. 'If on that day you had the leader, who was outside parliament, speaking for the party saying I want to leave NATO and then our foreign affairs spokesperson in Parliament saying that the Green party want to stay there and reform NATO, then who do you look to as giving the Green Party's position?' This could get messy. Members of other parties are looking at this race, curious about where it could leave the Green Party (one sympathetic Labour MP told me they thought it would be a 'disaster' and would alienate much of the party's more moderate base). Polanski did not inform Ramsay or Chowns of his intention to run before going public with his campaign. When I ask the pair how things will work if Polanski does win, Ramsay said: 'I think that's for Zack to set out… he's certainly had no conversations with the MPs about whether that would work or how he would make it work.' As I went to ask my next question, Ramsay shot back, 'he's made no attempt to talk to us about it at all.' Though Chowns and Ramsay's campaign may not have landed as loudly as Polanski's, they have election-winning credentials. As Ramsay said, it took time to build the 'broad coalitions' which have pushed the Green Party to where it currently sits. With polling for the leadership election opening in a matter of months, the pair may need to ramp up the volume in order to win the fight; it won't take much time for that 'broad coalition' to be unpicked. [See more: Did Zia Yusuf jump, or was he pushed?] Related
