"Evil flourishes when good men do nothing"

My Blog - separate to this site  |   Biography  |   Articles   |  Manifesto | Topics of the Past   |   Contact Me

Recent Articles

Opposers have been vindicated on Zero-Ten Policy

Letter to  Jersey Evening Post  19th September

YOUR EDITORIAL  'Vindication for zero-ten tax policy' (14 September) is remarkable for the extraordinary amount of misinformation contained in it.

You simply failed to explain that the zero-ten policy just approved by the European Union is not the zero-ten policy which they declared was against their Code of Conduct.

It was the original zero-ten plan that I and others claimed over the years would not be accepted by Europe. And we were right.

Back in 2002, Europe told Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man that the zero-ten proposal presented to them did comply with their Corporate Taxation Code of Conduct.

When Europe later declared that it was not happy with the original zero-ten proposals, Jersey authorities made the excuse that 'Europe changed its mind, having first approved it and then disapproved it'. That line was also peddled by the then Bailiff of Jersey, Sir Philip Bailhache, in one of his many forays into the political arena.

Senator Le Sueur later let the cat out of the bag when he admitted that only the bare bones of the proposal was put forward to Europe, it did not include the 'deemed dividend section' and it was only an 'in-principle agreement awaiting further detail'.

When Europe saw the 'deemed dividend section' it considered this and declared that it breached their Code of Conduct and was unfair and discriminatory.

Which is what 1 and others had been saying for several years and been condemned for doing so by the Le Sueur/Ozouf group of politicians who claimed that we did not know what we were talking about.

Having put Jersey's finance industry into a position of great uncertainty for over a year with the subsequent loss of business, the politicians responsible for this fiasco realised that the only way out of their difficulty was to alter the deemed distribution section so that shareholders in Jersey companies would be treated in the same way as foreign-based companies trading in Jersey where shareholders pay no tax on their profIts until they were distributed.

Therefore, to suggest that those who supported zero-ten have been vindicated and that those who opposed it now have 'egg on their face' is totally wrong. We are the ones who were vindicated by the first European decision.

What your editorial also failed to recognise is that this change to zero-ten is now going to create enormous opportunities for tax evasion by local shareholders.

It now means that if an individual in a Jersey company builds up a substantial sum of profits over a number of years and then decides that he no longer wishes to run his business and sells it he gets all his profits tax free because there is no capital gains tax in Jersey.

The Chief Minister has already announced that this new version for zero-ten will lead to a loss of at least £10 million in revenue to add to our fiscal problems. How is this to be recovered? Another rise in GST?

To suggest that anyone involved in this fiasco that has cost Jersey over £10 million in lost revenue deserves any praise or credit is an absolute travesty and another excursion into Cloud Cuckoo-Land.

Ted Vibert

Go to top of page

The Jersey Finance Industry is SooooooOOOOOOOOOOH Transparant !!!!

The total myth of the Jersey Finance Industry being a highly respected and transparent industry has been well and truly blown apart by the actions of the Nigerian Government pursuing 20 million pounds of embezzled funds hidden in Jersey bank accounts.

These funds were the proceeds of corrupt deals with motor vehicles carried out by Nigeria’ s late dictator Sani Abacha. In his six year reign Sacha is estimated to have embezzled £2.2 billion of which £200 million is rumoured to still be in Jersey.

The location of this cash was only discovered when a Nigerian bag-man called Raj Bhojwani was jailed for six years for his part in laundering US$43million through his Jersey bank accounts.

Quite obviously the Nigerian Government is very grateful to the Jersey authorities and our Attorney General has stated that it was a pleasure to help a country that had suffered so much through corruption and underlined his department’s commitment to seizing the proceeds of crime and returning them to their rightful country.

All of this, of course, beggars the question: how on earth can the spin masters at Jersey Finance and their acolytes like John Boothman and Geoffrey Grime tell the Jersey people that their largest industry is squeaky clean and totally transparent. If that is so, how come we are accepting money from dodgy businessman acting on behalf of corrupt dictators from poverty- stricken countries? It is shameful , disgusting and totally immoral and besmirches any pride we can have in our island.

We will no doubt be told by those deceitful spin-masters at Jersey Finance that this is a one-off situation and cannot happen again and nothing like that is goes on today.

If you believe that, you must believe in the tooth fairy.

How can we believe that Jersey has a transparent tax regime when what the States does is create legislation written by the finance industry for the benefit of people who don’t live on this island and lets those people who live elsewhere in the world avoid their obligations to the societies where they really live and work.

They are able to do this because Jersey- like all tax havens- have developed a deliberate veil of secrecy which deliberately prevents the tax authorities in the places where they really live and lead their lives from finding out where they have hidden their money.

Of course, these local tax manipulators hide all this behind cleverly worded instruments with names like “tax information exchange agreements” which they sign with various countries to show how co-operative we are when tax authorities from other countries come calling to find out if any of their citizens are using Jersey to hide away their money.

There are two problems with these agreements. First, our authorities do not ask or record the one crucial question that matters—where do you pay tax on your income? The second problem is that we have no experience of operating tax information agreements, as the OECD has pointed out.

As I have said before- and won’t apologise for repeating it- how can Jersey be regarded as being in any way transparent when at least 50% of all personal banks accounts in St. Helier do not disclose the information on income received to their home tax authorities.

How can we say that we have stopped money from sources like the Nigerian money when Jersey totally refuses automatic information exchange under the European Union Savings Directive-the only sure way to stop tax evasion on personal accounts that there is.

How do we know that these illicit funds won’t still be finding their way into Jersey bank accounts when we still cannot find out who owns a Jersey company, who the nominee directors of those companies are really representing and can never see the accounts of a Jersey based company.
It’s about as transparent as a bowl of mud.

The leaders of the Jersey Finance Industry lie through their back teeth to the people of Jersey about how transparent it all is and that they don’t want tax evader’s money. Yet the behaviour of banks does not match this story at all. Remember that BBC flagship programme Panorama last year, when a reporter with a hidden microphone in a briefcase came to Jersey and pretended to be an investor with £4 million to bank. The bank official spent most of the time telling him how he could avoid tax in the UK. Of course, the bank concerned said that this was a “one off” and not the general practice of the bank and the manager had been “reprimanded”. Oh yeah- a one off and a reprimand! The Tooth Fairy again.

How long will it be before we discover that Libya’s dictator Gadaffi hasn’t salted away billions that are deposited in Jersey bank accounts.

Is this all the rantings of a Grosnez bumpkin? May be. But when the head of the UK’s Revenue and Customs tells a Parliamentary C committee that Jersey‘s finance industry is opaque and how difficult it is to break it down, you can rest assured that this Grosnez boy is right.
Of course, that can’t happen because our banking industry is sooooooOOOOOOH transparent.

Go to top of page
 

This is Another Fine Mess You've Got Us into Senator Ozouf

The trouble with Senator Ozouf is that he thinks he is a clever businessman. The fact is that he has never run a business of his own in his life that hasn’t been a flop - and he lives off the inheritance left to him by of his family.

But because he has such a high opinion of himself, he is a positive danger in the important role he has as the man in charge of our public spending. This high opinion would be bad enough on its own but it is allied to a personality trait called “control freak”. He has to have his finger in every pie because he believes that he is cleverer than anyone else and is the only person who can negotiate a deal.

We have two totally different versions of the police administration cock up for the Lime Grove building in Green Street.

In the blue corner, we have Home Affairs Minister former Magistrate Senator Ian Le Marquand who blames Ozouf for the mess.

In the red corner, we have Ozouf protesting that it wasn’t his fault and that Home Affairs had not briefed the Treasury with the details of the deal until a few weeks before they were due to sign the deal.

So who do we believe? Ozouf is a consistent liar (remember “I give you a categorical assurance that I will not increase GST in the event of a recession”) and “our black hole in our revenue has been caused by the recession (when we all know it was due to the decision to introduce “zero ten”). On the other hand Senator Le Marquand has never been exposed as not telling the truth (not to say that he has always made good decisions, but that’s another matter).

However, consider this. On July 1st this year the JEP carried this story “Jersey could soon have a £20 million new police station. After months of speculation, Treasury Minister Philip Ozouf has announced that he wants to buy a landmark office block that has stood empty for years and turn it into the police’s new administration headquarters. The expected £20 million cost would include the purchase of the site, its complete refurbishment and the move”.

Oh dear Philip - so you weren’t briefed about it. Did you ask any questions about how the negotiations were going back in July?

And then there was an entry on the JEP blog site from “Ali” which read:
“These comments from the Treasury Minister are outrageous and wholly inaccurate. As someone who worked at the Treasury at the time I can say that Property Holdings did brief the Treasury, chief executive and Minister and his assistant throughout the process. The offer that was made to the owners of the building was always subject to the Ministers approval and contract. Mr. Ozouf was completely aware of this and what the offer was as were the Treasury”

This posting ended with this judgement: “Be a man for a change, not a boy, and take responsibility for your cock-up. It only went pear shaped when you and Mr. Izatt decided that you knew best. Look what happened when you get involved beyond your expertise—the public loses out”.

I accept that postings on blogs can easily be manipulated. But when you put all the evidence together and when you have had as many dealings with him as I have had, I have no doubt that the blame for the shambles rest fairly on the shoulders of Senator Ozouf.

Go to top of page

WATCH OUT – THE OZOUF POLITICAL PARTY IS WORKING OVERTIME

SO YOU THOUGHT that here were no political parties in Jersey.   Well think again.

The Jersey establishment has always derided party politics and says that party politics are not acceptable to the people in Jersey.  However, behind the scenes at election time, Philip Ozouf and his cohorts are all working overtime, nominating candidates and giving them moral and financial support, to bolster their numbers in the States. 

Make no mistake - if any of the following are successful, Senator Philip Ozouf will be Jersey’s next Chief Minister.

All of the following are Ozouf supporters:

Kristina Moore (St. Peter) - Philip Ozouf is godfather to their children.

Mary O’ Keefe Burger (St. Helier no 1) is being proposed by former Senator Pierre Horsefall, a great fan and mentor of Philip Ozouf.

Ray Shead (no 3 St. Helier) recent former chairman of the  Chamber of Commerce and a big fan of Ozouf’s,  who  fully supported huge cuts in public services when he supported a group of businessmen called the Small Society (he didn’t feel that the cuts went far enough).   Supported the increase in GST to5%% and felt that taking GST off food would cost businesses money and would inconvenience them. The Small Society were reprimanded by the Advertising Standards Authority for misleading advertising.

James Baker (St. Helier no 1) son of former Constable of St. Helier, Peter Baker and his brother owned Noel and Porter and Frederick Baker.  They sold Noel and Porter to BHS who demolished the historic shop and replaced it with the present monument to ugliness.  Lives in St. Martin. 

Heidi Green (St. Saviour no 1).  Close friend of James Baker, member of the Institute of Directors and also a clear establishment nomination.

Andrew Lewis (St. John), a great supporter of Ozouf.  As Home Affairs Minister in the previous States, he was responsible for the sacking of police chief Graham Power, in a manner that was totally unsatisfactory, which is likely to cost the island dearly because of these irregularities.  He owns a public relations company and has spent the last three years spinning for various banks and government departments.  Is known to be writing speeches for many of Ozouf’ candidates and training them in speech-making.  No prize for guessing who he would like to see as Chief Minister!!

And finally we have that lout Terry Le Main claiming that he wants to go back to his roots, and become a deputy in St. Helier number 2.   If ever a man betrayed his supporters it has been Terry Le Main.  His list of wrong doings goes on and on, from breaches of Data Protection laws to allegations, still not yet resolved, of corruption in conjunction with a land developer His ignorance and lack of intellect are a constant embarrassment to States members. He is he only States member to be recorded in Hansard for snoring during a debate. He was dismissed as Housing Minister for attempting to interfere with a prosecution of the man who printed all his electoral material and a close personal friend. He believes that Ozouf is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

The Jones boy in Grouville. A lawyer and manager of a hedge fund which didn't do very well by all accounts. One of the Jones family which owns the Jersey Pottery and who recently sold their site at Gorey to Dandara which should be the kiss of death to his chances. I can't believe that Grouville would prefer him to Carolyn Labey who has done so much for the parish and supported the ordinary people of Jersey over such issues as taking GST off food and against GST altogether as well as her work in protecting the island's heritage sites and her work on education. This should be no contest as the Jones boy is a strong Ozouf man and has been promised the education portfolio by our arrogant Treasurer whereas Carolyn has always opposed his form of closed and secret government.

So be warned  when deciding who to vote for think this thought - will this candidate help to put Senator Ozouf in as our Chief Minister

Then make your judgement.

Go to top of page

NO MORAL CASE FOR TAX HAVENS

A BBC economics expert remarked only last week that "the world is closing down for tax evaders.  Soon there will be no place for them to hide their secret wealth"

He was commenting on the recent decision of the Swiss authorities that will allow UK tax inspectors access to secret bank accounts held in Switzerland and will enable them to recoup up to £6 billion a year

I have been warning about how vulnerable the Jersey economy is for some years now.  I have argued that our whole economy is built on a foundation of sand which is shifting and eroding and we are very vulnerable to any change in tax laws in various countries who find themselves adversely affected by our activities

Countries are now no longer prepared to stand by and watch their tax laws evaded and slowly but surely the noose is tightening around tax havens like Jersey.   Nicholas Shaxson, the author, has written a devastating book "Treasure Island" in which he lays bare the whole disgraceful industry of tax evasion and tax avoidance which has become an international best seller

It has also opened the eyes of serious financial journalists and politicians and more and more newspaper articles are appearing in the international media about dubious and dodgy practices of "international finance centres"   The latest appeared in yesterday's Sunday Independent which I am happy to reprint in full

Headed "THERE IS NO MORAL CASE FOR TAX HAVENS and a sub-heading of "They are the epitome of unfairness and injustice, leaving ordinary citizens to foot the bill for multi-national corporations". .

Independent Sunday, 28 August 2011

There is a building in the Cayman Islands that is home to 12,000 corporations. It must be a very big building. Or a very big tax scam. Tax havens are in the spotlight since the Chancellor, George Osborne, did a deal the other day with the Swiss authorities to slap a levy on secret bank accounts held there by British citizens. Opinions are divided on the move, which could net the Treasury £5bn, but which tacitly legitimises bank accounts kept secret from the Inland Revenue. It is a de facto amnesty for those guilty of tax evasion crimes. And they will pay less than they would if they declared their income to the British taxman. 

Are there any legitimate reasons why anyone would want to have a secret bank account – and pay a premium to maintain their anonymity – or move their money to one of the pink dots on the map which are the final remnants of the British empire: the Caymans, Bermuda, the Turks and Caicos and the British Virgin Islands?  

The moral case against is clear enough. Tax havens epitomise unfairness, cheating and injustice. They replace the old morality embodied in the Golden Rule of reciprocity – that we should do as we would be done by – with a new version that insists that those who have the gold make the rules.  

The old view, the neocon American Christopher Caldwell wrote recently, subscribes to a religious understanding of money that was universal in the Christian world before the rise of Protestantism, which acknowledges that people are alive but money is not, making it wrong for the latter to take precedence over the former – a notion as outdated as usury, he suggested tartly. 

But what is the moral case for tax havens? We can dispense with the argument advanced by their administrators that if they didn't take the money it would simply move to more distant locations; that is the self-serving logic of a man who sells torture equipment to an oppressive regime. Apologists insist that tax havens protect individual liberty. They promote the accumulation of capital, fair competition between nations and better tax law elsewhere in the world. They also foster economic growth. So much so, the Institute of Directors has said, that Britain should not curb tax havens but emulate them, promoting the growth of more hedge funds in the UK. 

Yet even if all that were true – and it is not – does it outweigh the ethical harm they do? The numbered bank accounts of tax havens are notoriously sanctuaries for the spoils of theft, fraud, bribery, terrorism, drug-dealing, illegal betting, money-laundering and plunder by Arab despots such as Gaddafi, Mubarak and Ben Ali, all of whom had Swiss accounts frozen.

The corruption spreads contagion, as the financial writer Nicholas Shaxson showed in Treasure Islands, his book about offshore finance which exposed secrecy, corruption and intimidation in places as seemingly innocent as that land of milk and money, such as Jersey in the Channel Islands. 

But the moral bankruptcy of the tax haven runs deeper. Indeed it is intrinsic to its purpose. The British Virgin Islands is the global capital for the incorporation of offshore companies. Though it has a population of just 22,000, it has 823,502 registered companies which make vast amounts of money through the wonder of transfer pricing. It works like this. Suppose I manufacture a product in Africa and sell it in the UK. If I am a canny businessman I set up an intermediate company in a tax haven. It need do nothing except exist on paper. But through it I can buy all the products I make in Africa, dirt cheap, and then sell them, at a much higher cost, to my UK subsidiary. The African and British companies do not, thus, make much profit, so I have little or no tax to pay. All the money stays offshore, where taxes are low or non-existent. This is perfectly legal. But it distorts the world economy and means I pay no tax. I can also borrow where rates are lowest and keep my costs where they are most tax deductible.

That is why General Electric paid no taxes in 2010, despite $14.2bn profits. It's why Barclays, with 181 subsidiaries registered in the Caymans, paid relatively little UK tax on its worldwide profits. Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, with 152 subsidiaries in tax havens according to the US government, paid no net UK corporation tax between 1988 and 1999. 

Half the world's trade flows through tax havens. Every multinational uses them routinely. So do banks. Almost 70 per cent of international trade now happens within, rather than between, multinationals. Christian Aid reckons that tax dodging costs developing countries at least $160bn a year – far more than they receive in aid. The US research centre Integrity estimated that more than $1.2trn drained out of poor countries illicitly in 2008 alone. 

Tax injustice is systemic to the tax haven. Barack Obama once understood that. During his election campaign he promised to crack down on corporate loopholes and tax havens. But he and other world leaders have not delivered on bursting open the seedy secret underworld of tax havens that nurtured the hedge funds, derivative trading and off-balance sheet lending that fuelled the 2008 global financial crash.  

Their malign influence continues, with hedge funds accounting for at least 30 per cent, and perhaps as much as 60 per cent, of current trading on the London and New York exchanges. There, they have quintupled short-selling. They have turned credit default swaps, designed as a protective insurance, into a way of betting on the failure of a company. The Caymans (population 50,000) is home to 70 per cent of hedge-fund registrations worldwide. 

And, as rich people waive their taxes, poor people wave goodbye to their jobs. "The rich are different from you and me," Scott Fitzgerald famously said. "Yes," wisecracked Ernest Hemingway in response, "they have more money." Today the difference is that they pay less in taxes.  

The real shame of Osborne's half-baked deal with Switzerland is that it has undermined the revised EU savings tax directive. That would have required an automatic exchange of information on income in bank accounts throughout the EU and in Switzerland, Lichtenstein and Britain's tax havens. All the EU member states, but two, had approved it. It would have dealt not just with individuals but also with companies, trusts, foundations and other complex structures.

Some say an attack on tax havens is an attack on wealth creation. It is no such thing. It is a demand for the good functioning of capitalism, balancing the demands of efficiency and of justice, and placing a value on social harmony.  

The billionaire investor Warren Buffett recognised that in The New York Times when he scathingly asserted the US Congress is in thrall to the super-rich. Thanks to his clever investment managers he pays only 17.4 per cent in tax – half what his office workers pay. That does not just boost inequality. It undermines faith in the fairness and integrity of the international financial system. And that is a political time bomb.

Go to top of page

As has been reported in the media, I have decided not to stand in the Senatorial elections but I will be contesting a seat in the Deputy election in number 3 district in St. Helier, where I now live. 

 I have explained fully my reasons for this below.

I have pulled out of the Senatorial election because I believe it will descend into a “personality circus” and the real issues facing the people of Jersey "will be by-passed and get submerged in a welter of personal vendettas.”

I am also conflicted by the fact that I have consistently campaigned for the Clothier proposals to be instituted and his proposals should be put to a referendum so that the public can have their say. In support of this, I have always argued that the island- wide mandate actually counts for nothing. A Senator elected with 14,000 votes has no more influence or power than a Deputy with 270 votes or a Constable with no votes.

This is shown clearly by the fact that of the ten ministers, who make up the Council of Ministers, four are deputies and 2 are constables. They are responsible for housing, health, social security, planning and environment, transport and technical services and education. Senators are responsible for the chief minister, treasury, home affairs and economic development. That means that there are 8 Senators with no ministerial responsibilities. So why be a Senator?

I agree with the public’s analysis carried out by the JEP that the October elections should be about the performance of States members over the last three years and whether or not they had failed to tackle immigration, fairer taxation levels, public service salaries, the use of consultants, government secrecy, human rights legislation covering discrimination in all its forms, accountability, freedom of information, transparency, control of public expenditure, unemployment and diversification of the economy

I believe I can serve my constituents in number 3/4 and around the island more effectively from the deputy benches.

I have been asked what my election manifesto is and I can only answer that it is what I have been talking about, making speeches about, getting petitions signed on. That is what I pledge to do.

Unlike Ozouf, I keep my election promises. I am simply asking people if they are happy with the things that have happened in the last six years, they should vote the “old guard “back in. But if the public want change they need to choose people who are pushing for change—not the Ozouf “plants” about which I will be writing later.

So I ask the following question

ARE YOU HAPPY WITH THESE RESULTS?

	Failing to hedge the euro value of a massive contract for the Incinerator (the biggest in the island’s history) which has cost the island over 4 million pounds.
	Failing to take action over the massive increase in population, when all the warnings were given by concerned people and organisations that this was taking place.
	Wasting the opportunity to provide the island with a magnificent waterfront development and, instead, given us a conglomeration of monstrous ugliness.
	Allowing the top public servants to increase their salaries to astronomical proportions, engage consultants at enormous cost - instead of doing the job themselves - and to continue with their gold plated pension schemes.
	Failing to diversify the economy thereby allowing the island to become hostage to the finance industry, which is built on the shifting and dodgy sands of tax avoidance?
	Ignoring advice that the zero-ten tax regime would fall foul of the European Code of Conduct and would have to be scrapped.
	Causing the tax burden to shift savagely from the corporate sector on to the shoulders of the public (as a result of introducing zero ten, corporate tax has dropped from 52% to 12% in ten years and personal tax - that’s you and me - has risen from 42% to 84%.)
	Allowing a consultant for the Hospital to be engaged at a ludicrous cost.
	Despoiling our coastline with developments like Portelet and protecting Jersey’s ugliest building, the Odeon, and blocking a £40 million development that would have rejuvenated an ugly part of St. Helier.
	Threatening to remove grants from private schools and dismantle what is an excellent education system.
	Allowing our road system to deteriorate to such a degree that will cost £100million to put right.
	Letting our housing stock deteriorate so much that £84million has to be spent.
	Failing to tackle the Housing problem and provide decent homes for young people at a reasonable cost.
	Allowing the tax burden to shift from business to the people- in 2000 business contributed 52% of our tax revenue and now it's leapt from 42 to 84%.
	Building an incinerator of total ugliness on a beautiful Ramsar foreshore and ignored all expert advice about the site being inappropriate.
	Leaving the island without a reciprocal health agreement with the UK for nearly two years.
	Closing the Fort Regent swimming pool and totally neglecting the development of Fort Regent as a sporting and health centre (as well as paying a subsidy to a Waterfront pool that costs over £500,000 a year)

I am angered by all of this and I hope you are too.  I want to resume my seat in the States as a Deputy and Lead a concerted drive for change.

Go to top of page

WHY IS THE JERSEY MEDIA SO GUSHING WHEN IT COMES TO DEALING WITH OBSCURE BRITISH MPS?
 

THE JERSEY MEDIA - both the JEP and BBC Radio - have given a huge amount of space to a recent visit to Jersey by a Shrewsbury MP and his views about what a wonderful place Jersey is and how he is going to try and persuade Mr. Cameron, the British Prime Minister to visit the island and see his concept of The Big Society in action. Don’t hold your breath!

Let’s get this straight. The fawning Jersey media gave the impression to the Jersey people that this British politician was someone of significance in British political life. The JEP said that he was a junior minister of agriculture and “chaired two committees on relationships with the Arab world.”.

Sounds impressive - until you do a bit of research into the man. This research shows that he is a political lightweight. He is not a junior Minister of Agriculture. He is merely a parliamentary private secretary to a junior Minister of Agriculture which is as far removed from the power base of politics in the UK as a milk monitor is from the headmaster

THE HYPOCRACY BY FORMER SENATOR HORSFALL

IS BREATHTAKING...

Former Senator Pierre Horsfall, who was president and head of the old Policy and Resources Committee, now heads up an extra-ordinary- albeit tiny- group of people bleating on about how the States have been guilty of constitutional vandalism by reducing the number of Senators from 12 to 8 over the next eight years .

He claims that decisions made by the States on this matter are “unconstitutional” and “undemocratic”. How so? The people of Jersey elected the current States members in free elections, the matter has been continuously debated to exhaustion on four occasions and the result has been the same each time How can that be undemocratic?.

That Mr. Horsfall and his small group think the decision is “ill judged and controversial” is irrelevant. He and his few followers on this matter are not in the States and if they are democrats they will do what all of us true democrats do when we lose, which is to accept that situation with good grace.

It is interesting to see that he now regards” a parliament made up of members with vastly differing sizes of constituencies and mandates in terms of numbers of voters has no place in modern democracy and is overdue for electoral reform.”

This is precisely what the Clothier Panel concluded over ten years ago. And who brought in the Clothier Panel? Why, Mr. Horsfall did. And who failed to take the Clothier Report to the people in a referendum for a decision. Mr. Horsfall did and who encouraged the States to cherry pick Clothier? Mr. Horsfall did, aided and abetted by the former Bailiff, Mr. Philip Bail ache.

I have to say that those of us who worked hard to get the Clothier panel’s solution out into the public area in a referendum - and having to endure criticisms of Mr. Horsfall and his cohorts who did everything to scupper our position- find his present stance incredibly hypocritical.

HOW CAN WE MAKE THE STATES MORE DEMOCRATIC

There is a very simple answer to this. As we have 3 different types of members with different sizes of electorates we should “weight” the vote of each member. This is how the Trade Union Movement has solved the problems of their Trade Union Congress (TUC) where each delegate to their annual conference is weighted according to the size of their Union.

This could work like this:
Senators would receive a vote for every thousand votes they receive. So based on the last election, the votes would be:
Ian Le Marquand 14,238 14 votes
Alan Beckon 10,273 10 votes
Alan McLean 9,094 9 votes
Philip Odour 8775 8.5 votes
Paul Router 8713 8.5 votes
Sarah Ferguson 8316 8 votes
Results for the other six Senators in 2005 except Senator Le Gresley’s by- election last year)
Ben Shenton 14025 14 votes
Fred Cohen 13704 13 votes
Terry Le Main 12159 12 votes
Terry Le Sueur 9976 9.5 votes
J. Perchard 8998 8.5 votes
Francis Le Gresley 5798 5.5 votes

Total Senator Vote: 120.5
Deputies would receive a vote per thousand, making a total of 28
Constables would receive one vote making a total of 11, but the Constable of St. Helier would receive 5 to compensate for the size of his electorate, making a total of 16

This would mean that the voting power of the States would be 164.5 of which 120 would be held by Senators elected on an island-wide vote.

This would give real power to be the people and radically reduce the power of deputies elected for small constituencies and put the Constables into their rightful place of influence.
 

Go to top of page

WHO NEEDS SENATORS ANYWAY?

WHAT A FUSS Deputy Carolyn Labey, of Grouville, caused with her proposition calling on the States to rescind a decision made earlier this year to reduce the number of Senators in the States from 12 to 8 over the next four years, with two going out at this years election

I have agreed with many things that Carolyn has done in the past and admire her as a parish politician. I also know that she does not believe that the States needs reforming and is happy with the current set-up. This is where we part company.

Her constant argument that this” infringes people’s democratic rights and is unconstitutional” is, I’m afraid, ridiculous.

Yes, Senators have an island-wide mandate. But once elected they have no greater power or influence than a parish deputy so what’s the point of the office. In the current council of Ministers, of the nine ministers responsible for island government, only five Senators hold the office of minister. They are the Chief Minister, Treasury Minister, Home Affairs Minister, Planning and Environment Minister and Home Affairs Minister

.The following Senators holds no office- Senator Shenton, Breckon, Perchard, Le Gresley, Le Main, Ferguson and Routier.

The other four ministries- including our two big cost items Health and Education- are held by deputies or Constables. Two of them- health and education- did not fight an election. On top of that we have a chief minister who has not faced an election prior to his election within the States. He then picks a cabinet of Ministers which has no mandate from the public.

This is what Clothier wanted to eradicate. His panel stated very clearly that the Senators and Constables should go and that there should be one class of member of the States with 44 being the optimum number

It is interesting that one of the supporters of keeping Senators and Constables in place is former politician, Mr. Pierre Horsfall, who, at the time, was the head of the Policy and Resources Committee, the most powerful politician in the island. He promised the island that there would be a referendum before the States made a decision on this fundamental constitutional issue. But when push came to shove he backed away and, instead, had a series of public parish meetings to discuss the matter. These meetings were packed with supporters of the Constable and the honorary police and they forced Mr. Horsfall to declare that there would be no referendum. Mr. Horsfall then led the way in doing what the Clothier Panel told them not to to, which was to cherry pick their report and bring in the shambles of government we have today.

I am sorry to say that Deputy Labey’s idea of democratic government is not mine and her proposal to ask the States for the Privy Council to rescind a decision made by the properly elected government of this island was ill-conceived and deserved its fate.
 

Go to top of page

HOW JERSEY IS FALLING FOUL OF THE  OECD OVER TAX INFORMATION AGREEMENTS

THOSE INVOLVED in protecting the reputation of the Jersey finance industry – in other words the tax avoidance industry - are constantly telling the people of Jersey that we are well thought of by the IMF, the OECD and other such bodies for our transparency.  They also constantly publicise the fact that we have entered into a whole series of tax information exchange agreements with 31 countries, which shows how co-operative we are with other countries making inquiries about people and companies using Jersey as a tax haven.

My view has always been that this is a piece of window dressing to help  the finance industry assuage the guilt felt by many islanders that Jersey is engaged in an activity that helps individuals and companies escape tax in their own countries.

It was Dennis Healey, when he was British Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said:  “The difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance is the thickness of a prison wall”

That is the business that Jersey is in - and all the tax information exchange agreements won’t hide that fact.

Senator Ozouf claims that in taxation terms, Jersey is a good neighbour and cites the efforts the island makes to sign more of these agreements.   Yet, he will not allow Jersey trust companies to be part of this transparency, meaning that corporations and individuals can continue to hide their identity and financial affairs in the blanket opaqueness of Jersey Trust law.

So, how impressed is the outside world by our claim of being a good neighbour and tax transparent.

Not very, I can report.   For example, Mr. Dave Hartnell, head of H.M.Revenue and Customs recently appeared before a House of Lords sub-committee on Economic Affairs and Finance Bill.  He was questioned about the difficulty of his department getting tax information from offshore jurisdictions.

His answer was: 

“Some of the off-shore arrangements have been pretty opaque to us for some time.  It is not always possible to use the exchange of information provisions under treaties and other things to expose these.  The disclosure regime has done everything it could but where you have promoters outside of the UK-there are a number of promoters of disguised remuneration schemes in the Isle of Man, Jersey and other low tax jurisdictions-the disclosure regime has no bite and that has been the difficulty.”

The effectiveness of tax information agreements in a list of 18 jurisdictions is currently being reviewed by the OECD.  Jersey is one of the places listed in that review...  When they announced the peer review the OECD said:

 “The international fight against cross-border tax evasion has entered a new phase with the launch by countries participating in the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information of a peer review process covering a first group of 18 jurisdictions: Australia, Barbados, Bermuda, Botswana, Cayman islands Denmark, India, Ireland, Jamaica, Jersey, Mauritius, Monaco, Norway, Panama, Qatar, San Marino, Seychelles and Trinidad&Tobago..

Our reviews are the first step in a three years process approved in February by the Global Forum in response to the call by G20 leaders at their Pittsburgh Summit in September 2009 for improved tax transparency and exchange of information.”

And guess what.  Jersey was found to be less than perfect in the transparency stakes.

A draft of their report has been seen by a contact of mine with close ties to Brussels.  He tells me that the OECD report is very critical of Jersey and says things like:

“The highlighted provisions in some of Jersey’s EOI agreement may limit the effectiveness of information exchange.  Further, in one case, to date the interpretation applied appears to be inconsistent with the definition of criminal taxation matters and is preventing the exchange of information under the TIEA “Jersey’s domestic legislation which provides access powers to obtain information for exchange contains impediments which significantly affect access to relevant information although they have not restricted access”

I doubt that you will read this story in the JEP or hear it from the lips of Finance Jersey’s mouthpiece, Mr. Geoff Cook or Jersey Finance’s apologist, Mr. John Boothman.  And if it does come out it will be denied by Senator Ozouf, who will claim that no such document exists.

Go to top of page

JERSEY METHODISTS SHOULD TAKE NOTE OF THIS DECISION....

Tax avoidance impoverishes the vulnerable and is morally unacceptable, says Methodist Church

Ethics,

Jul 072011

YESTERDAY the Methodist Church called on the UK government and multinational businesses to end tax avoidance schemes which impoverish the vulnerable. It claims that as public services are being cut, the injustice of tax avoidance is becoming more acute.
 
The Methodist Conference heard that the Treasury admits to not collecting a record high of £42 billion in tax in the latest available figures. But independent analysts estimate the amount of lost tax to be much higher at £120 billion. The poorest 10% pay a much greater proportion of their income to the Government in tax than the wealthiest tenth (46% compared to 34%).
 
“Having a team of expensive lawyers doesn’t absolve you of the moral responsibility to pay a fair level of tax,” said Paul Morrison, Public Issues Policy Adviser. “Taxation shouldn’t be a game of strategy where you win by paying the least. Paying tax is a moral obligation – it is unacceptable to engage in complex financial arrangements in order to wriggle out of paying your fair share.”
 
Britain’s 20 largest companies between them operate a vast network of over 1,000 offshore companies, potentially allowing the companies and their clients to avoid huge sums in tax.
 
The Methodist Church is adding its voice to the ever-growing number of organisations demanding tax justice and is supporting Christian Aid’s tax campaign, which calls on the Government to end tax haven secrecy. The campaign also argues that multinational companies should be required to publish financial information such as the profits they make and the taxes they pay for each country in which they operate.
 
The Church is also supporting Church Action on Poverty’s ‘Close the Gap’ campaign, which highlights the impact of the ‘Tax Gap’ in the UK.
 
“Every pound avoided in tax is a pound less to spend on childcare, social care, health or education,” said Niall Cooper, National Coordinator of Church Action on Poverty. “At a time when spending cuts are having a real and damaging impact on the lives of some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the country, it is morally indefensible for some of Britain’s richest companies to be avoiding paying their fair share of UK taxes.”
 
The report, entitled Of Equal Value: Poverty and Inequality in the UK, adopted by the Conference, also asks all Methodists to examine their own practices to ensure they pay all the taxes they owe, both legally and morally.

 IT’S TIME THE DEAN OF JERSEY STOOD UP AND JOINED THE METHODISTS AGAINST TAX AVOIDANCE......

The Dean of Jersey is a member of the States( in my view he should not be) with the right to speak but not vote   He is there in that capacity following the report by the Committee of the Privy Council on the Proposed Reforms in the Channel Islands of 1947.

It was this report that led to the removal of the 12 rectors and the introduction of 12 Senators.   On the role of the Dean, the report said this: “The retention of the Dean in the States with a voice but no vote does, to some extent, favour the Church of England over other religious denominations; but we agree  that the representations of matters spiritual in  the Assembly is to be vested in one, the Dean is the most suitable person”.

His role in this should - and is presumed to - include matters of morality.  He is quite happy to speak about gambling, shops opening on Sunday and other such matters.  But he remains totally silent on tax avoidance, the islands main business.

Last week the Methodist Church at their national conference  made its position very clear  by loudly condemning tax avoidance as an immoral activity.

I have written a letter to the Dean of Jersey calling on him to actively oppose the practise on which the Jersey Finance Industry is based.  I  reproduce this letter, which is self explanatory.

It’s time the Dean stood up and did his job.  He has written back and we have arranged to meet in the next fortnight to discuss the matter  Watch this space.

 Click here to comment 

Go to top of page

I WOULD HAVE BEEN SQUIRMING IN MY SEAT IF I HAD BEEN IN THE STATES

ALTHOUGH I never met the former Governor, Sir Andrew Ridgeway, he always seemed to me to be a good chap and his wife a very pleasant lady. There is no doubt that they were very energetic in the work they did for the charities they headed.

But had I been a member of the States listening to his farewell speech, I would have been squirming in my seat and suppressing the desire to jump to my feet and shout out “rubbish”.

I certainly agreed with him when he spoke about the Haute de la Garenne inquiry and how it had ended up as a row over the way the police handled things rather than looking after the victims.

But when he started to talk about the way in which the States operated and called for a gentler, more consensus style approach I started to simmer. What has caused the problem in the States is the total failure of Ministers to answer questions during question time. The worse offender is Senator :Philip Ozouf who has made an art form out of spin and bluster. The president - especially if it is William Bailhache - is supposed to intervene when a Minister is waffling and not answering the question - but he seldom does. This leads to members getting very frustrated and, at times, angry. Listening to question time and knowing the answers to many of the questions I get cross just sitting at home with their ducking, diving and weaving.

Opposition that is real and heartfelt is what politics is all about. How can anyone with a conscience not be angry at many of the failures of this Council of Ministers. The incinerator fiasco that has cost us million; the disgraceful waste of public money by having our pigmy politicians to strut the world stage and how they puff out their chest and declare that Jersey is “punching above its weight in the world”

What do these trade missions actually do. Well, its an opportunity for representatives of legal firms to make contact with Chinese legal firms in China or Indian firms in India or Jewish firms in Israel and for Jersey banks and finance house to make contact with their counterparts in those countries. But why should the Jersey taxpayer be paying for this? If those firms wish to develop business in those countries, let them go and do it themselves.

We have nothing to offer these countries except managing the funds of wealthy people and corporations so that they can minimise tax in their countries. It is clear that Sir Andrew has been taken in hook-line-and sinker by the glib tongued staff of Jersey Finance who consistently trot out their stock phrase that Jersey is “a well- regulated international finance centre” rather than an offshore tax avoidance centre.

HOW JERSEY SURVIVED THE RECESSION

In his speech Sir Andrew praised the island for coming through the recession without much damage to our society, with a healthy bank balance and no real drop in business. He told the JEP: “Here we are in the middle of the biggest financial crisis since the second world war and we are in a position of no debt and significant reserves. There are lots of jurisdictions in the world that would love to be in that position and we are in that position because of the way the island has been governed in the last several decades”

He clearly doesn’t understand the state of Jersey financially. The reasons we have significant reserves is because we have failed utterly to maintain our housing stock and it is estimated that this will cost us £140 million. Our roads have been neglected for years and it is estimated that we need to spend over £100 million on them.

Again, he has been listening to the spin-masters of Jersey Finance. The fact is that bank profits have slumped to less than £650 million, there are 1,400 people un- employed - over 30% of them teen-agers, with more leaving school in July- and house prices have rocketed totally out of reach of the average person. The Citizens Advice Bureau is inundated with debt cases and Age Concern is struggling to keep its head above a water, providing services to the elderly.

All this seems to have escaped his notice, as has the fact that our pension scheme is one in which employers and taxpayers pay into a fund so that pensions don’t come out of general taxation, as it does in Britain.

And the major reason why the Jersey finance industry has been comparatively untouched by the banking crisis is because the British taxpayer bailed out the Royal Bank of Scotland, HSBC, Lloyds Bank and aided everyone in the industry with a massive amount of money printing (quantative easing). Imagine the carnage there would have been in Jersey if those banks had been allowed to fail. We don’t owe the States of Jersey any thanks for this but we do owe Gordon Brown and the British taxpayer a big thank you.

To suggest that the Jersey can claim any credit for this is ridiculous.
 

 Go to top of page

ZERO-TEN THE TRUTH

I WAS SURPRISED to read a JEP article headed “EU gives strong signal that zero-ten will be accepted”.

The statement issued by the EU simply stated that “Jersey had informed the Group about the proposed legislative amendment legislation with a view to removing any harmful elements. The Group welcomed these developments and agreed to review such legislative amendments when discussing the rollback of these harmful regimes under the Polish president”

How the JEP reporter could decide that this was a “strong signal that zero-ten would be accepted” is beyond me.

All the statement says is “thank you for telling us that you have removed what we considered to be harmful elements of your zero ten regime and we will review these amendments when we discuss your zero ten regime later in the year”.

I note again that Senator Ozouf expresses his confidence that the EU group will approve Jersey’s amended zero ten policy and because they welcomed the news that Jersey had amended its deemed distribution section that this was a positive sign. Amazing.

Readers of this blog will recall, I am sure, that Senator Ozouf was incredibly confident that the original zero-ten regime would be approved by the EU and told many public meetings that he was sure that the regime would be approved. 

We know what happened.

Whatever happens, the news is going to be bad for Jersey. If they approve the amended zero-ten policy it will mean a further drain on our revenue of at least 10million. How will that be recouped? Another increase in GST.?

If the EU decide that our zero ten regime is still not compliant with their regulations our finance industry could be in tatters

So there are no winners thanks to the obstinacy and arrogance of politicians like Senator Ozouf and Le Sueur who were warned seven years ago that their policy would not be compliant. But they stubbornly refused to accept the advice.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your efforts.

Go to top of page

MY WORK FOR THE LICENCED CLUB INDUSTRY IN AUSTRALIA

THAT APOLOGIST for the Jersey tax avoidance industry Mr. John Boothman, attempted to smear me in a letter to the JEP on June 3rd. In a long. almost incoherent letter he wrote trying to defend his reasons for not having the courage to debate with me in front of an audience at the Town Hall the motion: “That the finance industry has given Jersey more problems than benefits” he said the following:

“So instead of issuing challenges and asking me questions, perhaps it’s time for him (me) to start answering some of his own: for example- what can he tell us about his career in Australia where he worked as a paid lobbyist for the gaming machine industry? Does he feel this experience entitles him to take the moral high ground when debating the ethics of offshore banking” (in other words tax avoidance).

I am happy to oblige Mr. Boothman.

The machine gaming industry, in which I worked, was part of the licensed club industry of New South Wales. In 1955 the NSW government legalised the use of slot machines in what is known as “licensed clubs” in N.S.W. In that State a “licensed club” is an organisation where members have a common cause for the existence of a club, which is run for the members by the members through a duly elected committee. Many of these clubs obtain premises from where they run the organisation – similar to bowling clubs, golf clubs, the Jersey Rugby Club, the Mechanics Institute, the Beeches Old Boys Association, The Victoria Club, and the Aero Club etc.

These gaming machines- commonly referred to as “one armed bandits-” can only be used in these community type clubs and the profits from the machines can only be used to further the aims and objectives of the club. They are, in fact, highly efficient “revenue raisers” which enables clubs improve their buildings and facilities.

For instance, a sailing club 200 miles north of Sydney on a wonderful lake setting, owns more than 30 sailing dinghies where club members, especially young people, learn the art of sailing up to Olympic level. The club employs two full-time professional coaches. The club house, which started as a one room wooden affair with a bar and a corrugated iron roof, in 1955 embarked on a massive building programme and by 1972, when I arrived in Australia, had a truly magnificent club house boasting a fully equipped gymnasium, a 500 seat auditorium with fully equipped stage capable of mounting shows for top artists such as Sammy Davis Junior, Max .Bygraves, Frank Ifield, Dame Edna Everage and the like. These shows were free, alcohol was subsidised as was food in the restaurant. They even had an area set aside for looking after toddlers with professional nurses, that operated up until 11p.m. so that mothers could use the gym, tennis or sailing facilities and leave their children in the care of the club. It became the leisure centre for the whole district and had over 30,000 members who all paid $5 for the privilege of being a member.

The club operated 100 slot machines and it was the revenue from these that enabled the club to provide the facilities they did.

When I arrived in Australia in 1972 there were 1,500 licensed clubs in NSW with at least 300 of them similar to the sailing club mentioned above operating over 100 machines. The largest club in NSW was South Sydney Juniors, a club formed to develop the game of rugby league amongst juniors. This club owned a five storey building packed with facilities such as swimming pools, gymnasiums, a billiard room with 16tables, a dance studio, a darts room, a750 seat auditorium, and five restaurants-Indian, French, Chinese, Indonesian and traditional.

It cost $5 to be a member and there were 52,000 of them- which if they all turned up on the same day would have made it the fourth largest town in NSW!!

The club operated 400 slot machines. At that time there were over 30,000 people working in the licensed club industry which made it the biggest employer in the States outside of the government. Clubs paid a graduated tax based on their revenue and this provided 9% of the States revenue or the equivalent of the entire education budget.

In a\ social study carried out by a group of sociologists from the Australian National University, the NSW licensed club movement was described as
“the world’s most perfect example of co-operative leisure facilities provided by the people for the people.
The job that took me to Australia was to be public relation and marketing manager for a company manufacturing slot machines with over 1,000 employees. There were two other companies in the same business and competition was fierce. My job was to increase our market share which we did over a four year period until we forced the other two of the companies out of business.

During that time I developed a computerised system for monitoring the performance of slot machines and I formed a company called the Poker Machine Analysis Bureau and sold this service to clubs. The NSW government then made it mandatory to use a system similar to mine and my business boomed
By 1984, all the licensed clubs of other States had been looking enviously at the success of NSW clubs on the back of the revenue from slot machines and they all wanted their laws changed to make this possible Each States had a licensed clubs association and they decided to all get together to form the Australian Club Development Association They were looking for an executive director and approached me to take on this role. They were funded by the slot machine company I had worked for, who saw the opportunity of expanding their market so I agreed to a five year contract to carry out this work.

By the time I left, slot machines had been legalised in all other States- not all following the NSW example.

So to suggest that somehow I was doing something that I should be ashamed of in Australia and was in conflict with my stand against the immorality of tax avoidance is a very foolish allegation and totally untrue. I am very proud of the work I did in Australia, even though the cost to me was considerable thanks to the opposition I ran into in various States from vested interests from illegal gambling to hotels and breweries trying to protect their monopolies.

Compared to the hatchet jobs done on me during my term of office as executive director of the Australian Club Development Association by those people- aided and abetted by corrupt police officers in their pay who were subsequently jailed and dismissed from office for their roles in this - people like Mr. Boothman are pigmies when it comes to trying to discredit me. So keep it coming you boys in the tax avoidance industry.
 

Click here to comment 

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MILK PETITION

I'M AFRAID Deputy Geoff Southern has  been telling “porkies”about the “bring back school milk petition”

First, he claims that it was his idea. It wasn’t. It was mine and all the minutes and correspondence shows that to be so.  This is as big a lie as his statement that he and I formed the JDA, which he was constantly boasting about when I was ill.  The facts are that I formed the JDA entirely on my own. Yes, he was a member but that was all he was or did.

Second, he claimed that JDA members had done the bulk of the work collecting signatures on the milk petition. What he failed to explain was that the bulk of the work was done by myself, Shaun Keedwell, Shelley Rose and Paul Gilliatt, all new members that I had bought on to the Council of the JDA and who have all now left the party.

I have now handed the petition over to Deputy Geoff, together with all my research material and hope that he will do justice to it.

My friend Shaun Keedwell was so incensed by Geoff Southern’s claims that it was his petition etc that he wrote a letter to the JEP which they declined to publish. This spelt out exactly who did what and I publish it below. Judge for yourself and ask the question - why would the JEP not publish such a letter?

 Click here to comment 

Go to top of page  

Click here to go to my answer to Mr Boothman's reply.

I WOULD like to thank Mr Boothman for his letter (JEP May 18) about my resignation from the JDA. 
 

As a result of his utter predictability I was able to enjoy a decent meal on Saturday night instead of my usual fare of  bourdilloes, vraic buns and Jersey wonders washed down by a rough cider.

But let me explain.  On the day I announced my resignation, I had several wagers with two political friends (yes, I do have some).  The first wager was that the first person to have a letter published in the JEP about my resignation would be Mr. Boothman.   Bulls eye one.

The second wager was that he would use phrases like “the jda is now a party of one” and ”one of the aims of the Tax Justice Network is to destroy our finance industry”.  Bulls eye two

The third wager was that somewhere in his letter, Mr. Boothman would accuse me of making “inflammatory personal attacks on people who disagree with me”.  Bulls eye three.

I won enough money to get me two decent meals.

Mr. Boothman is full of accusations but totally unable to back them up with facts.  When he wrote his last letter about me and the JDA in November last year, he wrote about me having “nihilistic policies”. I challenged him to produce any policy I have ever supported what could be described in this way.  Silence.

He also claimed that I had pursued a “vindictive campaign against so-called establishment figures with personal insults and threats.”  Again I challenged him to give evidence of this.   Again silence. 

In this respect he thinks it’s perfectly proper to align Deputy Geoff  Southern’s political stance with the murderous regime of Pol Pot.  A  quite disgusting and shameful comment,  reminiscent of the worst days of the late fifties and early sixties when this newspaper did it’s  best to keep communist Norman Le Brocq out of the States, referring to him as a ”puppet of Stalin who follows  orders from the Kremlin.”  And he accuses me of making personal attacks on people! 

In his previous letter Mr. Boothman also advised me that I should choose my friends more wisely - such pompous arrogance is hard to understand in this so-called enlightened day and age but political dinosaurs don’t seem to learn any lessons.

In his latest letter, he maintains the same immature stance using phrases about me like my “willingness to snuggle up to the Tax Justice Network (among whose goals are the destruction of our finance industry)”.

I am not a “snuggler”.  But I do sit comfortably at the same table and on the same level with men of intellect who are highly talented, generous (in terms of their time towards helping Jersey) thoughtful and moral.

People like Richard Murphy, John Christensen, Professor Jacques Harel of the Institute d’Etudes Politiques de Rennes, Nicholas Shaxson, author of “Treasure Islands –tax havens and the men who stole the world” who is also an Associate Fellow of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) and who also writes regularly on economic matters for the Financial Times and “The Economist” and Prem Sikka, Professor of Accounting at Essex University.

And as for the Tax Justice Network (TJN) “wanting to destroy the Jersey finance industry” that is grossly untrue.

One of the key players in that organisation is Mr. John Christensen who, like me, is Jersey born and educated and who, like me, went to the UK as students to university.  After gaining, experience in the economic field, John worked in a number of areas of economics and then returned to Jersey, eventually to rise to the position of economic adviser to the States.

It was this experience - working on the inside of the Jersey finance industry and having a strong moral work ethic - made him realise that what Jersey was involved in was basically immoral, persuading and then facilitating rich people and corporations to avoid paying their taxes in their own country, (usually impoverished ones) so he resigned.  He and his group have a plan B to put Jersey’s finance industry on to a sure and solid foundation, rather than the sand on which it is built and which will go the same way as the fulfilment industry but no one in government is to listen.

The tragedy for Jersey is that organisations like the Institute of Directors, the Chamber of Commerce, the Small Society and all the other acolyte organisations refused to come out of their bunkers when Richard Murphy was in Jersey and delivered his “ethical finance industry plan B”. 

Here was the chance to meet him face to face and debate the issue with him but they all ducked it.  Was it because they knew that against the superior intellect, knowledge and expertise of this man, the thought of being reduced to mincemeat in front of an audience would not be a pleasant experience.  Much better to stay at home and snipe  from behind their computers and insult him in the columns of the JEP rather than eyeball him and tackle him head on. .  In my book, that’s political cowardice and worthy of nothing but contempt.

In my last letter, I challenged Mr. Boothman to stand in the Senatorial elections and let’s see who is “equipped for the task “.  I repeat that challenge.  I also challenged him to publicly debate the issues with me.  He wouldn’t.  So I now issue him with another challenge to publicly debate with me at the Town Hall the motion: “

“That the finance industry has given Jersey more problems than benefits”. 

Whilst I can understand his fear of crossing swords publicly with people of the calibre of Richard Murphy, why would he be afraid of me?  After all, he has  written “it is clear that JDA members, past and present, are ill equipped for this  task and we must hope for a better class of candidate”  So here’s your chance, Mr. Boothman, to prove that I am ill-equipped for the task.  Come and publicly humiliate me  with your superior intellect and knowledge.  After all, I’m a Jersey bean from Grosnez.  You should make mince meat of me.  Rise to the challenge and defend your industry- I dare you.

Ted Vibert

ALL HUFFS AND PUFFS FROM MR BOOTHMAN - BUT STILL NO DEBATE

My reply to Mr. Boothman's subsequent response in the Jersey Evening Post....

1Osborne Court, St. Aubins Road, First Tower

Dear Sir,

Your correspondent Mr. Boothman always disappoints. So much rhetoric followed by so much inaccuracy. As a former columnist of yours, he has clearly learnt the art of all amateur journalists. which is to never let the truth interfere with a good story. .

In his letter (June 3rd) he claims that my general theme is that “the finance industry has given Jersey more problems than benefits”.

I certainly want a public debate on this issue and as he is such a stout public defender of the finance industry ( and I fully understand his loyalty to his industry) he should be able to publicly defend his industry... After all, he has worked in the tax avoidance business all of his working life and has very close connections with people in the Small Society, the Institute of Directors, the Chamber of Commerce, the Jersey Bankers Association and members of the Le Sueur/Ozouf political party.

He has also publicly stated that no member or former member of the JDA was fit enough to be elected to the States. For these reasons, I challenged him to debate with me what he calls “my general theme”. in front of a public audience.

His excuses for refusing my challenge are quite pathetic. He calls my offer to debate the issue “tempting” but then argues that he won’t accept my challenge because he fears that I will use it as a ”publicity stunt” How could that happen?. A public debate in front of an audience on a set subject fully exposes the participants to what has always been recognised as “the anvil of democracy” where information is publicly challenged and argued over.

How could this be turned into a publicity exercise for me?. I am taking the risk on the basis that if I don’t know what I am talking about and can’t articulate the case I will be publicly exposed as a fraud and deserve to be recognised as a Jersey bean from Grosnez and not fit to be elected to the States. Equally, Mr. Boothman faces the prospect as being shown to be simply a biased mouthpiece for the finance industry trying to defend the indefensible.

His other reason for ducking my challenge is that he says that he is not standing for election, therefore his views are not important. Yet they are, obviously, important enough to inspire him to express them through the columns of this newspaper .As I have said in previous letters, his refusal to publicly debate the issues with me yet continue to snipe at me from his bunker is political cowardice of the worst type.

Mr. Boothman then issues a warning to me that as a candidate in an election I must expect to have my reputation under challenge. I have stood in two elections in the last ten years and won them both and have been totally prepared to have my life put under whatever scrutiny the electorate wishes I am happy for my life to be an open book.

He then asks , if I am elected in October, “can the people of Jersey look forward to further doses of “the venom, rabble rousing and character assassination that did so much to bring island politics into disrepute.”

If it takes “venom” and” rabble-rousing” to put into effect the policies on which I might be elected, so be it. I don’t indulge in” character assination”but because I attack a person’s policies, opponents scream out “personal attack” to try and divert attention away from the policy attack.
Mr. Boothman suggests that by exposing the Connex contract to public scrutiny- which led to Connex having to pay £196,000 back to the taxpayer; narrowly failing to win a vote of censure on Senator Walker for helping a close friend get planning approval that would have turned two green fields in Trinity into what would have been a landfill disaster( when the Constable and the parish deputy stood idly by and watched it all happen without protest): when I forced the Planning and Environment Committee to resign over their incompetence in the Connex bus saga; missed by one vote to force the Harbours and Airport president to resign over the Emeraude Affair; fought a losing battle over the disgraceful Le Pas agreement, which cost the island 10 million pounds and introduced the Remuneration Tribunal, taking decisions about States members’ pay away from the States Assembly brought the island into disrepute...

Mr. Boothman’s contention that all of those actions did “much to bring the island into disrepute” is taken straight out of the “Frank Walker/ Philip Ozouf Defence Manual.”.  It pre-supposes that the world is waiting with baited breath the next public issue I may take up. Such a contention is so insular it’s hard to believe that any intelligent person could advance it.

And as for my work in the machine gaming industry in Australia, space does not permit me to go into this but the public can read a full account of that on my web-site ted vibert.com which will show how ill-informed Mr. Boothman is.

So again I challenge him to debate the issues with me. If he refuses, he should forever hold his peace about me and stop writing rubbish..

Ted Vibert
 

 Click here to comment 

I AM not going to prolong the debate regarding the events that led up to my resignation from the JDA, but I am afraid that the chairman’s version of events- outlined in the JEP on May 13 in their report headed “JDA hit back at Vibert’s version of why he quit the party” - contains two blatant inaccuracies that I will not let pass unchallenged.

Mrs.Christine Papworth stated in that report that I could not accept the democratic will of the Council and that is why I walked out of the meeting, when my views were challenged.

The facts are that there were 7 council member present at the meeting- myself and three others who I had recently introduced to the Party and who fully supported me and three other members- Deputy Southern, his wife Ann and Mrs. Christine Papworth.

Had the Council voted on the items I had brought up for discussion, democracy would have ruled the day and the Council would have approved by 4-3 my proposals for how money could be saved to fill the £8 million cost of taking GST off food. Is that going against the will of the members? Not in my understanding of democracy, which is that the highest number of votes always wins?

Unfortunately, Mrs. Papworth, Deputy Southern and Mrs. Southern make a classic error in believing that the Council of the JDA is the Party’s supreme policy making body. It is not. An election manifesto is put together with the approval of the members at a general meeting of members. I had, in fact, organised the first such meeting, which was scheduled for May 9th.

I had already informed the Council that the plan was to have a series of quarterly meetings to discuss various aspects of our manifesto and make decisions on them to complete out manifesto by August in time for the October election.

We never completed our discussions and no vote was taken as confirmed by Mrs. Southern’s official minutes, circulated to all members, so it was deliberately misleading to say that I would not accept the “democratic will of the Council”.

The second blatant untruth is that I walked “out of the meeting when my views were challenged.” The facts are that I walked out of the meeting when Mrs. Southern accused me of being “morally bankrupt” and Deputy Southern screamed at me that I was “selling my arse just for votes” He then stormed out of the room I was not prepared to put with this insulting behaviour and left the meeting.

In my defence, people should know that this habit of shouting crudities at anyone who argues against his views is a regular habit of Deputy Southern...Only a month ago during a political discussion with him at his home we had a difference over a policy matter that I was advancing when he was so rude and overbearing that I had to cut short our meeting and leave his house. I sent him an e-mail telling him that his behaviour was quite disgraceful and if he had not apologised to me by 9a.m. the next morning I would be leaving the Party. He did give me an embarrassingly abject apology and I told him that if he ever spoke to me like that again I would quit

It was then that I finally realised that I could not open their minds to anything that was not deeply entrenched in extreme left-wing politics and I had been on a mission impossible in trying to move them to the centre to make them a credible force in Jersey politics.

Unfortunately, my ill-health soon after the formation of the Party left them leaderless because of the ill-health of my friend, the Rev. Tony Keogh, who was also taken ill. This led to all of the moderate people who had joined the party leaving when they saw the left group take over.

This was not what I had envisaged. My vision was for a group of people to be politically active- an alliance of like-minds who could turn Jersey’s direction around over time and provide a government that not only cared about people but was also dynamic in developing the economy and leading us to prosperity with a broad- based and sound economy.

Hope springs eternal.

Go to top of page

Copyright 2011  |   Site Map  |   Privacy Policy