Public left none the wiser about subject of secret meeting

But to be attempting secretly to call secret meetings to the tune of 21 deputies is out of order. That is a majority of the Assembly. So if, at the secret meeting the 21 reach unanimous agreement on how to vote at the next States meeting (in which they needn’t necessarily air their arguments), the secret meeting to all intents and purposes becomes the States meeting. Not even the best or most devious of spin doctors could claim that such a scenario represents transparent government.

So quite rightly, up step Peter Ferbrache, Neil Inder, Carl Meerveld to roundly condemn St Pier and his allies. But what happens next? The Press runs an opinion column along the lines of ‘accept your differences, move on’; Ferbrache meets St Pier for peace talks over coffee and we are left none the wiser as to what the secret meeting was about and what was decided. It looks like controlled/false flag opposition to me and my suspicion that these various storms are either created or hijacked to produce our acceptance of a political party system (with the parties virtually identical) is strengthened.

Which brings me to the island-wide voting referendum, which has taken a back seat, thanks to the supposedly out-of-the-blue issues that have been arising lately. Apart from the above potentially diversionary tactics, please consider this:

If you were charged with holding an island-wide voting referendum but could see that such a system would undermine your power base and you wanted it to fail, you might try some of the following options.

You might give the job to someone who is a known opponent of such a system. They didn’t do that did they?

You would then arrange for the proposed referendum to be comprised of a multitude of options so as to confuse the outcome and ensure no option was a clear winner. They didn’t do that did they?

You might also arrange to include the options, that although looking superficially attractive, would not actually produce the desired result (shades of Brexit?), whichever the public eventually chose. They didn’t do that did they?

You would also take care to ensure the only voting system that would actually produce an all-island election (the single transferable vote) was not on the list of options for the public to choose from. They didn’t do that did they?

Finally, you would ensure the whole process was overseen by an official who was an opponent of all-island voting. They didn’t do that did they?

MATT WATERMAN,

Flat 2, 3, Burnt Lane,

St Peter Port, GY1 1HL