Llanito World

BLOG CLOSURE

2011-12-14T12:06:00.001+01:00

THIS BLOG IS CLOSED FOR THE PRESENT

NO FURTHER COMMENTS WILL BE PUBLISHED

I WISH TO THANK ALL READERS AND CONTRIBUTORS

I AM SURE THAT ALL COMMENTS WILL INFLUENCE THE FINAL VERSION OF THE BOOK THAT WILL EVOLVE OUT OF THIS BLOG

THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN!

Here Ends this Blog

2011-12-02T09:54:00.001+01:00

I consider that I have written about all that I wished to see happen in democracy and politics in Gibraltar for the present. I was a very early user of the World Wide Web for political purposes in the exercise of the right to freedom of speech. It cost me my position on the Financial Services Commission. There are now several Facebook sites dedicated to free political discussion, which provide the important venue for the voice of people to be heard and heeded.

The recently published Manifestos of each of the GSD, GSLP/Liberal Alliance and the PDP contain in varying degrees political reforms that I have been advocating. This is good to see. I believe that, today, democratic politics in Gibraltar is in a better place than it was before this blog started. I hope that the manifesto promises are not cynical promises to be broken.

Political parties should by now realise that voters will punish them for broken promises by exercising their rights to freedom of speech on the World Wide Web. The party that is elected into Government on the 8th December 2011 should remember that, as should all opposition parties who aspire to govern. The face of politics in Gibraltar and elsewhere is changed for ever.

I wish all the parties contesting this election the best of fortune. I urge them always to remember that they are each the servants of the people of Gibraltar. I pray that, in varying degrees depending on their respective roles, all will serve Gibraltar with the ambition of taking the collective that is Gibraltar always to a better place. Improvement is constantly available and possible. I pray that whoever is elected will put any bitterness and aggression that there may have been in the past behind them. I pray that whoever forms government will look positively to the future and govern to the best of its ability within the parameters permitted in a democracy and by the Rule of Law.

Finally, I will now quietly write the book that this blog has become. It may never be published but it will keep me out of mischief for several months. I thank all the readers and contributors to this blog. I never expected to get many readers. I wrote much of it to get my own thoughts off my chest for therapeutic reasons :) little expecting that I would average 1000 hits a day. I trust that I have provided a beneficial service to Gibraltar, although, some may not think so, I believe that I have. Thank you all readers, without you this blog would have been a sterile exercise.

However, for the next few days I will be giving my views on the election campaign on www.yourgibraltartv.com so see you all there.

An Illegal Air Terminal?

2011-11-27T08:27:00.001+01:00

I have no doubt that Gibraltar's Air Terminal needed improvement. I also have no doubt that before spending 75,000,000 Euros, the GSD Government should have resolved Gibraltar's energy problems. Energy, in the form of electricity generation, is the lifeline of Gibraltar and its economy. No electricity equals no economy, today we are relying on skid or "emergency" generators. I have asked the question, how is this to be resolved, over and over again without a reply being forthcoming from any political party but importantly not the GSD Government who have been in power for the past 16 years.

Now, to add to the issue of bad prioritisation of expenditure, I wonder how people will feel if I were to suggests that the new Air Terminal has been built illegally? That is what I will argue in this blog because it is a prime example of a lack of good governance in Gibraltar. It would be right to say that an argument of illegality on many projects could be made against most past governments of Gibraltar. There is now one major difference: the new Constitution. In the past Governors have had more power, under the new Constitution, the GSD Government have been the first Government to have had more power: with power comes responsibility.

There is a basic requirement under the British system of government that everything must be done according to law. This requirement applies equally to a government, by which I mean the executive arm of government. In Gibraltar (because we have a subsidiary Parliament) this means that an Act of Parliament is required to authorise a government to do anything. The additional layer to this rule is that "... government should be conducted within a framework of recognised rules and principles which restrict discretionary power." (Wade - Administrative Law 5th Edition). All of these are the core principles that underpin parliamentary democracy. It is the basis of the principle of Parliamentary Supremacy, which in Gibraltar is only curtailed by the Constitution.

It is only by this principle of the Rule of Law that power flows back to the people through the medium of an election and so underpins democracy. It is only by the strict adherence to this most basic of rules that a government is accountable to the people who elect it. It is through parliamentary debate and questions that Minister are brought to account in a democracy. The only other remedy is recourse to the Courts because governments and Ministers are equally liable for injury as any citizen if they act outside their powers granted by law. This is known by lawyers as acting ultra vires.

Let me now turn to the issue of the new Air Terminal. Armed with this very basic knowledge of Administrative and Constitutional law, which any lawyer worth his salt will know, I decided to research how the construction of the new Air Terminal had been authorised by law. Lo and behold I have discovered that there is no law that allows the Government to build an air terminal. It seems to have been built in exercise by the GSD Government of a power that it does not have in law. Its construction has never been authorised by Parliament. It seems to have been built on the basis of Ministerial diktat worthy of Soviet Russia or maybe even Franco's Spain.

Having come to this conclusion, I decided to consider the potential repercussions of this situation. The first, undoubtedly is that it undermines all the principles of democracy because it sidesteps the democratic safeguard provided by Parliament. The second is that it is palpable and incontrovertible evidence (if any further evidence were to be needed) of a breach of the 1996 GSD promise of open, transparent, accountable and democratic government. The third is an analysis of the potential financial consequences of such a huge mess.

In order to unravel this huge mess I went first to the new Constitution. Government Finances are dealt with in Chapter VII of the New Constitution. This deals with the requirement that all government revenues (except as authorised otherwise by an Act of Parliament) have to be paid into the Consolidated Fund. No money can be withdrawn unless charged on the Consolidated Fund by the Constitution or an Act of Parliament or as permitted by an Appropriation Act. Neither the Constitution nor any other Act of Parliament charges the expenditure to construct an Air Terminal on the Consolidated Fund. Therefore this throws us back to an Appropriation Act.

Section 69 of the Constitution requires the Minister for Finance to prepare and lay before Parliament "... estimates of the revenue and expenditure of Gibraltar ...". It is this provision that founds the basis of an Appropriation Act, which is what authorises withdrawals of government expenditure. I went, therefore, to the Appropriation Act 2011. Sure enough, no mention of expenditure for a new Air Terminal, but there was an "Improvement and Development Fund" amounting to £95,887,000. One assumes that the cost of the new Air Terminal is included in this figure.

The question that then arises is, is this appropriation sufficient legal authority to permit the GSD Government to construct an Air Terminal? I can only answer this question with a "NO". First an Appropriation Act only authorises withdrawal of expenditure and not the doing of any act. Second, I would refer the reader to the words that I emphasised in bold in the immediately preceding paragraph. Only expenditure that is "... of Gibraltar ..." can be authorised by an Appropriation Act. How can the expenditure on the illegal and so ultra vires construction of an air terminal be " ... expenditure of Gibraltar ..."? It cannot be precisely because if it is illegal it is not "... for Gibraltar ...". If I am right (I believe that my legal analysis is correct), then, the inclusion of any expenditure in the Appropriation Act for the Air Terminal is an attempt to fund an unconstitutional act and so also illegal and ultra vires.

What are the repercussions of this illegality? In my view the first is that, under section 74 of the the new Constitution, the Principal Auditor has the exclusive and unfettered duty to audit and report on the public accounts of Gibraltar. An audit includes a requirement to ensure the legality and vires of any expenditure. In this regard those who have had anything to do with any illegal expenditure should bear in mind the provisions of section 68 of the Public Finance (Control and Audit) Act. This section makes any public officer personally liable for improper or illegal expenditure, if the Financial Secretary considers that it has been incurred negligently, carelessly or by the default of any public officer. Readers should bear in mind that Ministers are also public officers.

The second repercussion is that under the new Constitution the responsibility to ensure good governance in Gibraltar lies with the UK Government and is exercised through the office of the Governor. I ask myself, can it be good government to be governed outside the Rule of Law? If my argument is correct (I believe it is) it cannot be good government for the construction of an air terminal at a cost of 75,000,000 Euros to have been undertaken without the authority of a law. At the very least it undermines Parliamentary Supremacy and so democracy.

Gibraltar- An Elective Dictatorship?

2011-11-20T09:25:00.001+01:00

The GSD persist in advertising how well they have done over the last 16 years. The GSLP/Liberals and PDP, in stark contrast are taking the election, in part, to one place where it should be: the issue of good governance. Good governance is not about trusting who governs us, although that does come into play. Good governance is about many things. Primordially it is about systems built into the machinery of government that prevent or, usually, reduce abuse

Lord Hailsham, Lord Chancellor of England and Wales, in his 1976 Dimbleby lecture famously described the system of government in the UK as an "elective dictatorship". I believe that there is some truth in that statement but it exaggerates the reality, probably purposefully for effect. The UK has democratic checks and balances, for example an element of separation of powers, an independent Civil Service and the truly free and very incisive press. Gibraltar has virtually none. The fundamental safeguard, namely the separation of powers simply does not exist. The phrase "elective dictatorship" is a perfect description of Gibraltar's system of government.

The one and only check on government that presently exists in Gibraltar is an election every 4 years. We are now at that juncture. Is re-electing the GSD a real option? I do not believe it is because the GSD is truly and exclusively at fault for Gibraltar's democratic deficit. In 1996 it promised reforms to improve democracy, accountability and transparency of and in government. It promised these reforms ostensibly to counteract the strong feelings, then running, against the GSLP administration. The GSLP at that time had failed to provide good governance. It seems to have been an election gimmick on the part of the GSD: the GSD has given us the exact opposite. We have been given no democratic reforms. Instead, we have been subjected to a form of centralised and authoritarian government that is not acceptable in a Western Democracy.

The only brake on bad government in Gibraltar is the fear of losing an election. This brake will no longer work for the GSD if it is re-elected at the forthcoming election. The reason is simple: Peter Caruana has indicated that this will be his last election as leader of the GSD. The GSD has governed Gibraltar exclusively by and through Peter Caruana. Each reader can and will assess his manner of government over the past recent years. I believe it has been unchecked. It can only get worse, if he knows that he will not be contesting the next election, as the brake of fear of losing an election will no longer apply to him. It will not be a good place for Gibraltar to be at.

It is impossible to believe that the GSD will keep any promise about democratic reforms. It has promised these for 16 years and not delivered any at all. Why should it do so now when Peter Caruana will not need to face the electorate again? He has no incentive to do so. The argument that he will be forced to do so by his party is sterile. When has Peter Caruana been forced by his party to do anything? Not even his Ministers have ever succeeded on this front.

On the other hand the GSLP/Liberals and the PDP have grasped the issue of democratic reforms fully and are committing to major policies on this front. Will either deliver, if elected? Well, that is a risk that we all take on all promises by all parties when we elect one into government. What can certainly be said is that history shows that the likelihood that the GSD will deliver is very low. Not only has it not delivered in 16 years but Peter Caruana, if he does not stand again, does not have to fear being punished at the polls in 4 years time. On the other hand if either the GSLP/Liberals or the PDP get elected, then, they both do have to fear an election in 4 years time. Not delivering on central promises during a first term in office is frequently punished.

The argument for change in order to achieve greater democracy in Gibraltar is inviolable by the GSD's own making, namely, its omission to undertake any reforms on this front in 16 years. The counter-argument that we hear is the GSD boasting about how well it has done for Gibraltar during its time in Government. There is no doubt about this on several fronts, mainly providing stability within which the private sector has prospered. The private sector has provided the wherewithal by which the GSD has been able to do much of what it now boasts about: money.

The issue is has it spent this money properly? Well I heard Peter Caruana on GBC rubbishing criticisms about the Theatre Royal, the electricity generating station and the sewage treatment plant, as though these were minor failings. This either shows that he has a total loss of perspective and judgment or that he needs to diminishing the importance of these failures precisely because these failures are so huge. The amount spent on the Theatre Royal was massive. The lack of a power station undermines the entirety of Gibraltar's economy and provision of power by skid generators is harmful to the environment. This failure adds to the possibility of having to resolve Gibraltar's energy needs by connecting to the European grid. The lack of a sewage treatment plant, aside from its adverse environmental impact, breaches international obligations.

I want to know from the GSD what, steps, if it is re-elected, it will take, or has in mind to take, to find the money required to fund the construction of the power station and a sewage treatment plant. I want to know from the GSD in what time span it will resolve these huge problems for Gibraltar. The GSD has been in power for 16 years, so it has a duty to provide the electorate with these explanations, if it wishes to be re-elected. The GSLP/Liberals and the PDP do not have the same obligation. However, if elected, one or other of them will be left with a massive legacy problem to resolve, caused by GSD misspending. They both need to give these issues much thought. If either is elected, it will fall on one or other of them to resolve these problems, despite that they have been caused by GSD failures.

Trust, Change, Real or Fictitious?

2011-11-13T09:45:00.001+01:00

It is over a week since the 2011 Election was called. The period for campaigning is the minimum possible under the 2006 Constitution, yet the campaigning has not started. The initiative on policies has been taken by the GSLP/Liberals but not on the announcement of its candidature. The Alliance has for various weeks been issuing press releases setting out its stall on governmental reforms and good governance. Thus it has been filling a massive void left during the 16 years of GSD Government. A void that exists despite the GSD manifesto promises to tackle this central and important subject. The GSD promised to do this in 1996. They have failed, so KEEP TRUSTING?

Let us have a quick tour of party bylines. The GSD's is "Keep Trusting". The GSD site is full of boasts of what it considers to be its achievements over 16 years. Its glossy publication, distributed recently, also does the same. This strategy is weak. It is paternalistic. The slogan says it all. We know what is best for you, so just vote for us, go home and do not worry, we will deliver, but deliver what? That is the core question that the GSD needs to answer if voters are to flock to vote for the GSD. In this regard, the GSD have greater difficulties than the other two parties. It has been in government for 16 years. Elections are about the future not the past. What is the GSD going to do in the next 4 years? Why has it not done it in the past 16 years, especially those policies that it promised to do in its past manifestos?

The GSD manifesto at the last election promised everything but has it delivered? In my view, it has not delivered on many fronts. I list a few, wrongly prioritising capital expenditure, i.e. a beautiful (cannot be denied) but expensive to run, man, illuminate and cool air terminal in preference to an essential power station and sewage treatment plant. Additionally throwing money at social services without a root and branch review of the system to tailor make it for Gibraltar, which should be possible due to its size. The GSD's failure to deliver democratic and governmental reforms. The centralisation of power under the GSD conjoined with the scant regard it pays to Parliament. The lack of regard paid by the GSD to fairness in the grant of contracts, employment and promotion and in appointments and removal from public positions. These are all breaches of central promises made by the GSD in 1996 and subsequently.

One interesting development manifested itself on Main Street on Saturday. One constant criticism of the GSLP by GSD diehards is that the GSLP has extremist (and in GSD eyes unsavoury) elements amongst its supporters. Well is the GSD immune from this? Clearly not, Mr John Culatto, a self-confessed GSD supporter, has taken it upon himself to make the most outrageous and extreme assertions about the GSLP/Liberals. I will not waste words by repeating what he is preaching, most of you will know already.

Mr Culatto's views may be an extreme manifestation of GSD religious and reactionary beliefs. However, I am not prepared to accept that, in slightly moderated terms, it does not reflect, in part, the religious thinking of many GSD supporters. This extreme Christian influence within the GSD was very evident from the stance of the GSD on the gay rights issue. Whatever one's religious beliefs might be, the only place these should have in lay government is as a guide to moral standards. Such beliefs are not the holy grail of religious sectarian politics. Criminalising certain acts is not a solution. Criminalisation can be the cause of much hardship and suffering. Let us not forget the English Catholic martyrs who were put to death due to a bad law.

The slogan for the GSLP/Liberals is "Change you can Trust". The retort from the GSD is no change for the sake of change. I agree with this retort. Change has to be because it is needed and it is right. Right because there is a need to re-invigorate government. Right because complacency and security in office has led to failures of implementing manifesto promise. Right because the manner of government requires those who govern us to be reminded that we live in a democracy. Right because the policies it espouses will improve Gibraltar. Right because the candidates that a party fields promise more than those of another and all candidates promise delivery of policies. It is not for me to tell anyone what is right. I can but suggest what type of factor, in my opinion only, should be looked at before voters decide who to vote for.

The matter of candidature is important for the GSLP/Liberals, so I will proffer an opinion on this subject. There is a danger that we may fall into the trap of criticising that the GSD Government is too centralised in one person, Peter Caruana, and yet shying away from voting for the Alliance because of personality politics arising from a prejudiced view of its leader, Fabian Picardo. This is hypocrisy at its best. It is visiting the sins of the GSD upon the Alliance, without evidence or giving them a chance. Simultaneously the sin of the GSD are forgiven because of a negative perception that the GSD is an evil but the lessor of two. If this is the state of democratic politics in Gibraltar, it is an unbearably sad state for Gibraltar to be in, after it fought so bravely for democracy during the closed frontier years

One should and must take a holistic view. The Alliance is promising wholesale governmental reforms. It is promising Cabinet government. Yes it is possible that the Alliance will not deliver this but that failure will not be down to one person, Fabian Picardo. It will be down to a collective failure of the entire candidature of the Alliance. It is this failure that has manifested itself in the GSD. In order to avoid a repeat with the GSLP, one has to look at its individual candidates. If they come through as strong characters, that is the greatest safeguard to, first, avoiding rule by Fabian Picardo (so the issue of personal mistrust is mitigated) and secondly ensuring that those policies that are promised are actually delivered.

The slogan chosen by the PDP is "The Real Change". Unfortunately, a highly optimistic slogan for two reasons. First, its policies do not sufficiently distinguish it from the GSD to actually make it the real change. Secondly, the current electoral system does not militate towards that type of change becoming a reality. So does having the PDP with a full candidature improve democracy? Undoubtedly, in my mind, it does. It does because, in the worst scenario, it stimulates debate and ideas and so agitates innovation in the other two parties. It does so, further, because the PDP provides a home for voters who are disillusioned with the GSD but cannot find a home in the Alliance. It does so because the PDP increases the choice of individual candidates for those of us who wish to vote for persons and not parties. It does so because it shows that our democracy is vibrant. I have nothing but praise and respect for those who are standing as candidates for the PDP in the knowledge that the party's and each candidate's chances of success under the present electoral system is minimal.

So there we are, keep trusting, change real or fictitious? That is what the parties think is the core of the forthcoming election. Keep the past or trust in the future? Well bring on those party manifestos, so that we can decide on policies and not solely on personalities, rumour and innuendo. Gibraltar deserves to be governed by the best of the available choice. Gibraltar deserves a better electoral and parliamentary system and to be governed by the Rule of Law. I want to vote for the people who, I believe, will deliver that. I do not believe the GSD has delivered on democracy despite its promises in 1996 to do so. It is sad for them because it should have delivered on this promise. If it had it would not be faced with the nigh on impossible task of having to convince the electorate that it will do so in the next 4 years. The evidence is that the GSD cannot be trusted on this core and centrally important issue for Gibraltar. I make no apologies for being a democrat. I am repelled by the use of that word in a party name , if in practice it fails to deliver democracy, especially after it has so fervently promised to do so.

Caruana, Lights, Shadows and Picardomania

2011-11-06T12:46:00.002+01:00

On Thursday 1st November 2011, coincidentally just days before the election was called for the 8th December 2011, the Chronic, which publishes under the banner "The Independent Daily", printed F. Oliva's opinion about each of Peter Caruana (Caruana: Lights and Shadows) and Fabian Picardo (Picardomania). His views merit some comment. Both of Paco's pieces, in my opinion, contain bland conclusions without sufficient analysis or argument. I will provide as examples a critique of the opening sentences of each piece. One should bear in mind that, importantly, opening sentences of any publication set the tone.

About Peter Caruana he opens his piece with praise. "The lights speak for themselves" referring to what Paco views as Peter's successes. Well, actually, the "lights" do not speak for themselves. For there to be "lights" they must be switched on. For the credit for switching them on to be attributed to someone, there must be evidence that it is that particular person that switched them on. It is not enough to say there are "lights" in Gibraltar as Paco seems to do. According to Paco, it seems that it has been Peter Caruana and his GSD Government who switched those "lights" on. However, he does not show by argument that that is the case. It may have been others or events beyond government's control or just inevitable circumstances that switched on those "lights" or contributed to them coming alight.

Paco goes on to write, "Gibraltar is more stable, prosperous and overwhelmingly, residents enjoy higher standards of living than at any other previous time in our history ... ' I agree with all of that. However, he then goes on to write, "This is an achievement that has not happened by coincidence and should not be underestimated." I do not agree with this statement, if that comment is intended as an allusion to all the successes he mentions being exclusively or primarily due to the works of Peter Caruana and his GSD Government. In making this broad brush statement, Mr Oliva has not asked himself and so does not answer a fundamental question: what factors have led to all this happening? He implies that the successes that he alludes to are entirely down to Peter Caruana and his GSD Government.

It would be churlish not to admit that the ending of the fast launch saga set the background for the success of the private sector. It is also true that, albeit forced to by public opinion, the legislation that brought this about was enacted by the Bosanno GSLP administration in 1996. I just hope and pray that the present day cross-border tobacco trade, that is now so rampant, does not have the same adverse effect on Gibraltar and switches off the "lights" that Mr Oliva attributes to Mr Caruana having turned on. It must also be said and emphasised that stability provided to date by the GSD Government has been fundamental to Gibraltar's success and the success of its economy. It is for this reason that I have voted at all elections for the GSD, sadly no more.

However, I would like and would challenge Paco to tell us what specifically Peter Caruana and his GSD Government has done to give rise to the "new" Gibraltar that he refers to? It is only if he can answer this question that he may be able to convince readers that Peter Caruana did, indeed, switch the 'lights" on. His bland and unsupported by argument writings are not convincing enough for me. I actually believe that Gibraltar's turnaround has been achieved down to the efforts and innovative activities of the private sector. This has been based on an economic model the foundations of which were laid by the 1988-1996 GSLP administration. It has been the success of the private sector that has resulted in Gibraltar creating jobs and wealth. In turn this increased employment and wealth has resulted in higher tax revenues to the government. Once there is more revenue, governments have the necessary wealth to spend more extravagantly.

Thereafter the analysis has to be, has this revenue been properly spent by the incumbent GSD Government led by Peter Caruana? I have argued in past blogs that much of our money has not been spent or prioritised properly by Peter Caruana and his GSD Government. It has been spent primarily on projects that were perceived to be electorally advantageous, especially in the months leading up to the election.

Much has been spent on projects that substantially increase recurrent government expenditure. I dread to think what, for example, will be the annual recurring expenditure required to run the new air terminal. A terminal that is unlikely to generate much income for the government. Additionally, how much will it cost to maintain all the new housing (rentals being decidedly low and an opportunity to increase, the Mid Harbours Estate, having been missed by reason of electoral opportunism) and all the new playgrounds etc etc? I dread to think but know that the resultant recurring public expenditure, together with the cost servicing the public debt that has mostly paid for the GSD Government's largesse, will over time reduce ability of future governments to undertake essential projects.

One important such essential project is the electricity generating station. All economies rely on the ability of each to provide energy to its businesses and people and Gibraltar is no exception. Gibraltar's longterm energy needs have not been catered for at all by Peter Caruana's GSD Government. Gibraltar is reliant on what, in a home or business, would be classified as "emergency" generators, for spin purposes called "skid" generators. Without power Gibraltar has no economy. I would like to be told by all political parties what they will do to provide Gibraltar with a sufficiently large electricity production capacity. I want all the parties to tell me how Gibraltar will pay for it too.

The GSD (and so Peter Caruana) has the prime responsibility to explain itself on this core policy failure during its 16 years in government. This omission could have disastrous consequences on Gibraltar and its economy. We may even be forced to connect to the European Electrical Grid, via Spain, (not that I personally object to that but most do) as a result of this act of negligence by the GSD Government. The environmental excuse used by it is no excuse at all. The "skid" generators are far more environmentally unfriendly than any power station that might have been built, whilst money was available to do so.

The sewage treatment plant, which is a EU requirement, is a further failure. I would like to know from all the parties, how each intend to fund the construction of such a plant. I specifically want to know this from the GSD. It is Peter Caruana's GSD Government that has failed, over many years, to provide such a plant despite it being required by law and for environmental and health reasons,

It is all very well for the GSD to boast in glossy brochures about everything that it has spent our tax money on. However, what is important is not what it has spent it all on but rather what it should have spent our money on and has not. So Paco, what "lights" has Peter Caruana's GSD Government switched on in regard to electricity production and the treatment of sewerage? I fear none but he has left a massive legacy problem for Gibraltar. I sincerely hope it can be resolved in the best interests of Gibraltar. Government is about issues like energy and environmental policies not simply about projects that are considered, subjectively, to be electorally opportunistic.

So what does Paco have to say about Fabian Picardo? Well his opening paragraph sets the tone of antipathy:"He [Fabian Picardo] has long realised that the GSLP in its current format was unelectable" This about a party that in the 2007 election failed to get elected by approximately just 600 votes. This differential means that if 300 voters had shifted their allegiance from the GSD to the GSLP/Liberals then we would have had a completely different government.

Paco goes on to make his dislike known, "With Bosanno having become a type of Michael Foot of local politics leading a sclerotic party that had its roots in the Gibraltar of the 1960's with outdated dogmatic intransigence with Spain and a style of government as centralised and authoritarian as anything ever seen locally ..." All UK parties and those of most democracies were founded scores of years ago and have their roots moons ago. The depth that comes with years of political experience within parties is widely considered to be beneficial and a sign of a developed democracy, not a ground for adverse criticism. The nub of Paco's issue with the GSLP it seems is its policy on Spain, which is expressed by Paco in judgmental and pejorative language. But hey Paco, open your eyes, it may not be what some of us advocate but it is the wish of the vast majority of Gibraltarians. To cap it all he then accuses the GSLP of having exercised centralised and authoritarian government. It may be a justified criticism of the GSLP but, hey Paco, where have you been over the last 16 years or even since the 1968 Constitution?

Mr Oliva is then, very early on in his piece, churlish of his praise of Fabian Picardo, he writes "[including Joe Bosanno in the GSLP/Liberal candidature] ... would ultimately turn out to be too unpalatable, even costly in political terms, given that the inescapable paradox for the champion of change, who may have voluntarily planted his own combustible Trojan Horse right at the core of his message for renovation. Clearly Bossano's eagerness for acting as a 'hand-break' [sic, Paco it is "brake"!] since ousted from office in 1996 could in this context begin to acquire a new political meaning, whatever the outcome of the election." Well, well, well, Paco, already condemning Fabian to failure due to your speculation of a schism between him and Joe? Well some consistency, please, I thought that one major criticism was that Fabian was Joe's chosen successor? Maybe I have got that wrong! Your condemnation that Fabian will fail to deliver change is unsupported supposition and speculation on your part. There is no extrinsic evidence whatsoever to justify that criticism. The relevant policies have been publicly announced and, certainly, Joe has not voiced any opposition to them whatsoever. In addition you fail to factor in that the GSLP, both in and out of Parliament, consists of more people than just Joe. The paradox may only be in your mind, Paco.

It is possible to go on and on analysing the two pieces written by Paco but I believe that by commenting on the opening few sentences of each piece I make a strong point and argument. I would commend all readers of this blog to re-read Paco's pieces again. The conclusion, of subjective influences having come into play, that I came to is, I believe, inescapable. "The Independent Daily", I wonder? Fortunately, no newspaper that publishes more than just facts can be independent. I approve of editorial policies. I approve of full freedom of speech. I therefore agree that the "Chronic" should publish opinions but readers must be circumspect when reading opinions and come to their own conclusions and views. My reservation is that those who read a newspaper should be very aware of those realities, especially when a staff journalist writes an opinion.

Party Funding: a Defective System?

2011-10-30T20:07:00.000+01:00

There is no law or rule that requires any political party to disclose the source of any funds provided to it for any electoral or pre-electoral expenses. In my last but one blog I raised the issue of how timing electoral propaganda expenditure could

"... very adeptly sidesteps the rather archaic rule that any expenditure incurred prior to 30 days before the election does not fall to be calculated within the limits imposed on candidates by the Parliament Act. A reading of section 14(2) is also indicative that, if any expenditure is incurred on materials and services before the prescribed period, then it is not to be taken into account, even if used within the prescribed period (although this depends on the interpretation of the word "expenditure" and "incurred")."

It is also true that the only further control that exists on electoral expenditure is an absolute limit (section 14(1) Parliament Act) of £3,000 per candidate. This limit only applies during the prescribed period stated in my quote above.

What these rules do not deal with at all is, first disclosure of who is making donations to any political party in Gibraltar. Secondly, the perception that arises that any individual or business that makes a substantial donation to a party does so in anticipation that he/she or it will receive an appropriate favour in return. In the UK there is a requirement for disclosure of any donation made to a party in the sum of £7,500 or more. Making rules to oblige disclosures in Gibraltar needs to be looked at urgently. Obviously the minimum amount that would need to be disclosed needs to be appropriately scaled down from the UK amount, in line with the limit on expenditure per candidate.

Expenditure by the GSD in an effort to get iteslf re-elected has already begun. It seems to be very lavish. Who is providing these funds to the GSD? Soon other parties, the GSLP/Liberal Alliance and the PDP, will be incurring expenditure. The public is entitled to know who is making donations to each political party to enable it to fund its election and pre-election campaign. For example, it would be very telling if the same individual or company were to be funding both major parties. It would be evidence of large favours being expected in return for the donation. There would be no other explanation for a desire to fund both main parties.

The issue of political donations to parties has been debated for years in the UK. The Committee on Standards in Public Life is now looking into it, once again. It is recognised, now, that the current system of allowing donations has to be discontinued. The only alternative is public funding. The debate is how the level of such funding can be determined? The favoured option seems to be to base funding on a per vote levy. The levy may or may not be what is introduced. Any system adopted will have its detractors but that is no reason for not finding a solution to such a palpably obvious defect in the electoral process. The same issue of finding an alternative method of party funding exists in Gibraltar. It is time that it be carefully looked at and debated with a view to resolution. Perhaps, waiting for the solution given to the problem in the UK may be wise. Waiting for the UK to resolve the election funding issue in order to follow it's example does not mean that making compulsory disclosure of donations public in Gibraltar should be delayed.

There is no doubting that putting a cap on expenditure has some small effect. A cap has always existed in Gibraltar. It does not exist in the UK at present, although one may be introduced. However, the cap does not resolve the issue of how funding affects politics nor unfair expenditure for the period immediately preceding the announcement of an election by the Chief Minister. However, what can or could influence policies and decisions is the source and level of largesse shown to a political party (especially if, as in Gibraltar, both factors remain secret), a cap on expenditure does little or nothing to prevent this but funding parties from public funds would.

Suspension of Blog During Election Campaign - CANCELLED!!

2011-10-26T21:50:00.002+02:00

The main reason that I have concluded that it is best to suspend publication during the election campaign is that the primary purpose of this blog has been to stimulate new ideas in the political arena and also some debate. It is pleasing to me that many of the ideas put forward in this blog are now actively in debate in the political arena. Many have also been adopted as policy, primarily by the GSLP/Liberals but all the ideas published in this blog were available for all and any politician or political party to adopt. None were the exclusive domain of one party as against another.

Publishing during the campaign will involve making partial value judgments on policy statements and policies of one or other party. This will result in acrimonious exchanges between persons who comment. I do not wish to participate in that divisive exercise. I will leave that to those politicians who are fighting the election. I will make one exception to the suspension of this blog, that is reserving my right to comment on any dirty or vicious campaigning, because Gibraltar really does not need that. If that sounds patronising, so be it

Glossy Propaganda and Social Issues

2011-10-23T18:14:00.003+02:00

This is the week that the GSD governing party published its booklet "Celebrating 15 years of success for Gibraltar". The timing of its publication must raise eyebrows. It is not illegal but its timing certainly smacks of sharp practice. The only person who knows with exactitude the date of the impending General Election is the Chief Minister. It is his party who makes this publication available on the eve of it being called.

Timing it in this manner very adeptly sidesteps the rather archaic rule that any expenditure incurred prior to 30 days before the election does not fall to be calculated within the limits imposed on candidates by the Parliament Act. A reading of section 14(2) is also indicative that, if any expenditure is incurred on materials and services before the prescribed period, then it is not to be taken into account, even if used within the prescribed period (although this depends on the interpretation of the word "expenditure" and "incurred"). This loophole must give the incumbent government from time to time some advantage.

The content of the GSD booklet says much. It certainly says that an enormous amount of money has been spent on tangible assets. It boasts that "Our economy has tripled in size, the number and quality of jobs has grown very significantly, our income tax rates have fallen dramatically, standards of living and take home pay have risen sharply ... We have invested most heavily in modernising and upgrading the most important things: our health service, our care services, our education and housing". Undoubtedly an impressive past record.

However questions need to be asked as to who has made it possible government or private enterprise? It would, however, be churlish not to recognise all the progress that has been achieved by Gibraltar, whether with or without the intervention of Government. It may be that those readers with specific knowledge of each "achievement" will reveal that all that glistens is not gold. I will leave that to them. It is also true to say that elections are fought and won on policies about the future not just past performance.

I will concentrate in this blog on a specific social issue. The issue that I want to focus on is the issue of housing and its impact on unsocial behaviour. It is an area in which I have anecdotal knowledge only, from reading the English press and watching current affairs programmes on TV for the last 40 odd years. My clear recollection from these sources is that high density housing, which is the only type of housing of general availability in Gibraltar, gives rise to many a social evil. These evils include vandalism and criminality, especially (but not limited to) amongst the youth. There is much comment in Gibraltar that unsocial behaviour is growing, certainly the Magistrates and Juvenile Courts seem to be increasingly busy.

In many parts of the UK one solution found was to demolish what has come to be known as "sink estates" and to rebuild more "user friendly" housing. In the UK this has often been found to be prohibitively expensive. In Gibraltar, expense aside, space limitations completely preclude this alternative. What I do not know (but it cannot be beyond the wit of man to discover) is what other solutions have been found in the UK where expense has precluded demolition and redevelopment? My belief is that if future governments of Gibraltar do not give this growing social problem attention but simply carry on building high density estates, the day will arrive when the problem will be beyond reasonable and affordable management.

In part some assistance in solving the issue could be found in an educational policy, that does not only encompass academic achievement, but also is empowered to teach moral and social values. Educators will also need to be armed with adequate discipline and disciplinary powers. The carrot alone is not enough, however, there must be a stick and that stick is already sorely missing.

I refer to the need to provide a facility to which the courts can refer juveniles and children for corrective therapy. I am being overly polite, what is needed is an appropriate "boot camp" to send offenders to, so that they can have education and discipline instilled in them. Many suggest the reintroduction of compulsory military service. This is neither permitted nor feasible. It also affects and imposes upon youngsters who are positive and beneficial members of society without need, rhyme or reason.

Pre-Election Party Posturing ... Where Might it Go?

2011-10-16T13:08:00.000+02:00

In this blog, I will review what each party has said so far on the eve of an announcement of the General Election. The future looks bleak for the GSD according to Opinion Polls but the GSD has not yet been defeated at the ballot box. Many commentators on this blog and word on the street is such that the GSD is not being seen as a potential winner at the forthcoming election. Most polls support this view. It would be foolish, however, to discard the GSD so early on.

PRC is a wily, cunning, intelligent individual and a politician with experience. The GSD will run an aggressive election campaign aimed at having a ruthless effect. All the signs of this are there, just read the 7 Days if you doubt that. The GSD has the advantage of an electorate that is conservative in its voting habits. The GSD has the advantage of having been in power 16 years and having spent our money generously.

The GSD has made at least one massive political error: it has left itself open to be crticised for that which it criticised the GSLP in 1996, namely, lack of open, transparent and democratic government. The other two parties, the GSLP/liberals and the PDP have piled in to fill this void. The GSD has no answer. The GSD has made a second massive error: to beleive that by last minute profligacy with our money it will redress its electoral deficit. I believe that voters in Gibraltar are not so gullible: many see it as a final ego trip for the CM. Let us see what alternatives are on offer from the other parties before returning to the GSD "offering".

The PDP have been at the forefront of preaching reforms that would lead to greater democracy since its inception. In fact long before that, because Keith Azopardi was a GSD Minister. He is the person in the 1996 GSD manifesto who was advocating democratic reforms. Also Nick Cruz was a member of the GSD Executive before the schism. It seems neither was able to deliver on the democratisation front but an analysis of the reasons for the schism may provide a clue. They disagreed with the opportunism of an absorption of the Gibraltar Labour Party and the lack of democratic processes for leadership change within the GSD.

The PDP has indicated its five key pledges for the forthcoming election:

A new style of politics- accountable, inclusive, responsive and constructive;
Lower personal tax and better economic management;
Better opportunities for young people;
Better quality of life for all and sustainable use of our environment;
Better public services.

All very laudable sound-bytes. We now need the PDP's manifesto to understand and assess how it intends to achieve these pledgesm and what the detail of these is. They are achievable with strict and proper prioritisation. What I believe in and commend the PDP for is playing the longer game rather than the short game that was played by the Gibraltar Labour Party. If the GSD were to lose the forthcoming election, then the PDP would be perfectly poised to become the second party in politics in Gibraltar for the next but one election. It is difficult to see the GSD surviving an election defeat: it simply is not a party in the sense of the word as I understand it.

Preparation for the forthcoming General election by the GSLP/Liberals has been more precise, specific and focused than the general pledges of the PDP. The first move was to amicably replace Joe Bosanno by Fabian Picardo as leader of the party. The second move has been the reinforcement of that change of personality with a marked change of politics and attitude. This change is best summarised by quoting Fabian Picardo from the GSLP/Liberal press release "Democratic and Political Reforms" of the 1st September 2011:

"Democracy is principally about the people and not just about politicians hence it is vital that every person who has a view is heard, not just the GSD government and the political parties ... we [GSLP/Liberals] have to ask what parliament should be, what it presently is and what it should be in the 21st Century, democracy governed by the rule of law and a commitment to openness and devolving government to the people. ... in a true democracy a Parliament is is the voice of the people ... [and] about holding government ... to account ..."

These are words backed up by specific policy announcements:

immediate monthly meetings of Parliament;
dedication of funds to Parliament;
full time Speaker with a Deputy Speaker and adequate staffing;
independent website to broadcast meetings of Parliament;
personal emails for all MPs for direct access by constituents;
better public, media, staff and MP facilities;
the appointment of an Independent Commission on Democratic and Political Reform to report on ALL aspects of the electoral and parliamentary system.

In addition the GSLP/Liberals have made the following policy announcements:

a Ministerial Code;
a Freedom of Information Act;
a 20 year rule for publication of "secret" papers;
a Whistleblowers' Protection Act;
greater access to Civil Servants by the public;
a Citizens' Charter for Responsive Government;
reform of the planning system with true and greater public participation;
support for the call for a Financial Services Ombudsman;
a stand alone anti-bribery and anti-corruption law.

Impressive stuff from both parties opposing the GSD at the forthcoming election but what is the response of the GSD to date? Well it is certainly not any indication of a change in Leadership. Why would that be important? I leave aside the issue of personality, as each person will have his/her own opinion on that subject. Lack of change of the leader of the GSD is an important consideration because the failure of the GSD to change the style of government to date, by introducing more democracy, transparency and openness, must rest fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the GSD's leader.

Why should anyone believe that the GSD will make any change on democratic reforms under his leadership, when for 16 years the GSD has reneged on its promise? In fact we know already that it will not. The GSD has forced a Motion through Parliament setting out its parliamentary and democratic reform agenda. This programme, outlined in the Motion, not only fails to deliver much of what is desired but, as an additional criticism, most of what it covers has been in the power of the CM to implement without legislative change throughout his term of office. Why should anyone believe that he will now deliver on any of it? Harsh criticism? Perhaps but, think about it, is it valid and deserved?

So what are the pre-election signs for the GSD so far:

rush to provide public toilets;
rush to provide playgrounds;
rush to provide more parking;
rush to to finish the Mid-Harbour Housing Project;
rush to finish the air terminal;
failure with airport tunnel/ring road.

The question on many people's lips is: how much is all the above costing us, the taxpayer?

What else does the GSD offer to date:

reminders of long past pre-1996 events as a reason to keep the GSD in government;
personal attacks on Fabian Picardo, not least in the 7 Days Newspaper;
Motions in Parliament against Fabian Picardo are ruled out of order as containing "unparliamentary" language, which exemplified the GSD's undemocratic attitude to politics ;
boast after boast about what has been 'achieved' in the past at the cost of taxpayers;
a trilateral process that is no longer working;
questions about the propriety of the last minute application of taxpayers' money to enhance electoral chances;
no future policies.

What is the GSD byline for the coming election? "Gibraltar has never been better - keep trusting". Certainly the money that has gone into the coffers of government and more that has been borrowed has been spent with great alacrity. You will need to decide whether it has been spent applying the appropriate priorities. "keep trusting" ... well we would have to in the absence of democratic, parliamentary and electoral reforms, wouldn't we?

What is the GSLP/Liberals byline for the coming election? "Vote for Change". I agree with the GSD that change for the sake of change is not a good reason to change a government but that is to miss the point. The point is that if what is promised is policies that are good and with which voters agree, then it is change for a better alternative. Well look at what the GSLP/Liberals has promised already, in that alone it is highlighting issues promised by PRC's GSD and not delivered by it. Look at the manifesto when it is published. Then and only then decide whether it is change for the sake of change or change for the better.

What is the PDP byline for the coming election? "The Real Change". Well, I repeat everything that I have said about change in the previous paragraph. My problem is that it is little change in fact. It is a reversion to what the GSD should have done but did not do. This does not reflect well on those members of the PDP who were Ministers or members of the executive of the GSD: they all failed to change anything on the inside of the GSD. They need to persuade voters that they have the strength that they lacked on the inside to change things from outside of the GSD. It is a party that will initially attract disaffected GSD voters who do not want to shift across to the GSLP/Liberals. It is a party that may prosper, as I have already suggested, if it plays the long game. It has indicated that it will by discarding the possibility of a pre-election merger with the GSD.

Well the election has not been announced yet but the battle lines are being drawn. There will be a lot more to go on to decide who to vote for once the manifestos are published and each party's candidates are announced, but already there is enough to start making one's mind up. Elections are about the future not the past. What has been done in the past can be the subject of praise or criticism but voters already have the benefit or harm of what has been done or not done that should have been done. I know the GSD are not often amenable to advice but my advice to them is: come up with new policies because boasting about the past will not win you the election. Coming up with new policies under the same leader is a difficult, if not an impossible call, but the GSD may succeed in achieving it.

The Polls: What do I Think they Mean?

2011-10-09T20:33:00.002+02:00

The most interesting aspect of the recent GBC/Chronic opinion poll is, not so much that it predicts a GSLP/Liberal win, but the poll related to issues that people consider important. This merits some thought and discussion, both in regard to the general replies and the specific replies on a party allegiance basis. In this blog I make first observations on what people consider to be the important issues and then on the poll that predicts the possible election results.

It is a salient feature, in light of anecdotal historical evidence, that "relations with Spain" comes fourth in importance after "style of government" (first), "employment" (second) and "health" (third). What this does not make clear is whether it means that people want a continued dialogue with Spain on the basis of the trilateral talks or the other end of the scale, namely, a wish to continue a rejection of any rapprochement with Spain. In that sense it is a meaningless statement. The only hint that there may be a desire for rapprochement with Spain is that GSD supporters place this issue third, after "style of government" (first) and "employment" (second). This is indicative of support by GSD supporters for the trilateral process pursued by the GSD, whereas GSLP/Liberal supporters do not include this option in their three top priorities.

The most important revelation in my mind is that "style of government" comes first in importance by a full 2% differential. Again "style of government" is not a very precisely defined issue but it is precise enough to gather that there is general disappointment in the manner in which we are governed. This is a major criticism of the GSD administration. In 1996 it promised more open, transparent and democratic government. This result shows that people consider that it has failed to deliver on this promise. Undoubtedly the prior GSLP administration also failed miserably, in my view much much more miserably, but that is no consolation for those of us, me very pointedly, who expected a change in this regard. That change is now promised by the GSLP/Alliance. What is significant is that GSD supporters put "style of government" as the most important issue; that is also an indictment. I would suggest that this is one important reason for some defection of support from the GSD. The GSD now persist on offering too little too late. Perhaps, it should rethink on this issue before the election, if it is to offer the electorate any hope of real change.

I could go on about the poll that classified issues in order of importance in the opinion of voters but it is also worth putting some aspects of the poll on election results in perspective. I cannot agree with the CM's argument that the methodology used to undertake the poll on the election result is flawed.

First, it reproduces the accurate views of those asked their opinions: that cannot be flawed.
Second, it asked a sample of 3% of the electorate: that is a huge percentage compared to the sample used e.g. in the UK.
Third, it is as flawed or as little flawed as the Chronic poll that had the GSD ahead (well received by the GSD) shortly after a Chronic poll that gave the GSLP/Liberals a lead.
Fourth, the Panorama poll has the GSLP/Liberals ahead as have several other polls including the Vox poll: one might be flawed (the Chronic one putting the GSD ahead, which is the odd one out of 4, perhaps?) statistically it is unlikely that the majority will be flawed.
Fifth, it cannot be as flawed as the anecdotal evidence that the CM uses to support his comment that "We don't believe the poll accurately reflects the feedback that we get at all levels of the community": perhaps it is they who are seeking the views of sycophants.
Sixth, the CM never comments on polls, he has this time: a sign of concern, perhaps?
Seventh, the CM's criticism that a 12 point lead (or 16 point lead depending on what figures are taken into account) is not a good result for the GSLP/Liberals is clutching at straws: that size of lead for an opposition party in the UK is unheard of. A 2 to 3 point lead is the usual margin of error. Even if there is an unheard of 50% margin of error (in statistics), namely 6 to 8 points the GSLP/Liberals would be ahead.
Eighth, arguing, as the CM does, that change has to be for the better is to argue a truism. Another truism is that to vote for stagnation is also not an option, so the GSD had better come up with new ideas. It cannot just promise, again, to do fundamental things that it has failed to do in 16 years. It cannot rely on boasts of what it has done. I think that the GSD has a more difficult task to convince voters that it should remain in power than any other party has to demonstrate beyond doubt that change will be good, which is the challenge made to other parties by the CM. This is one thing that comes through on an analysis of the poll on issues.
Ninth, to make the comparison of the past in terms of what 16 years of GSD government has meant compared to the pre-1996 GSLP administration is negative, stagnant and stale politics. Everything has moved on but one problem for the GSD is that debating anything else might be to highlight what it promised to do and has not done.

What all recent polls on the election results show is a clear trend. A trend that favours the GSLP/Liberals and should worry the GSD. I can agree with the CM on one observation that "We [the GSD] believe that it's all to play for" but the GSD are not the favourites to win right now. That the GSD is reacting is palpable. Belatedly it has discovered the power of the internet in politics. I am glad to have been a pioneer of politics in this medium by writing this blog. A pioneer in the use of the internet in Gibraltar for the expression of opinion by the public. A pioneer in breaking the hold that exists in Gibraltar of the rather staid press.

A pioneer also in making my views so openly and widely known without fear but, unfortunately, with personal repercussions to me. I believe that these consequences are to the shame of the Government and the FSC; to the FSC because of it's biased retrospective rules on political involvement developed following receipt of a letter from the CM that has been kept secret. These are crafted to avoid repercussions to other local members but to capture my blog. For those who are interested, weeks ago I provided to the FSC a 5 page critique of those rules. This week, I received the FSC's reply which informed me that the FSC had decided not to change it's rules and that accordingly it was not necessary for the FSC to comment on my criticisms at all. I have replied to the effect that I understand the FSC's inability to justify its decision. I used the word inability advisedly meaning that it is unable to provide a coherent explanation. I now publicly invite them to do so.

It is my belief that the now widely used and accessed political sites and pages on the internet dedicated to political comment and debate has had a marked and positive effect on policies that will be pursued by political parties, a fact admitted by the CM as being beneficial. It will also ensure that parties promise what they can deliver and no more and that they will deliver to us what they promise in their manifestos. Irrespective of reforms to Parliament and the electoral system politics in Gibraltar have already been revolutionised in this manner. This statement is not an excuse not to undertake meaningful and not superficial reforms. Internet punishment will follow if reforms are not effected. I am glad to have been one small cog in this small revolution. The CM has admitted that he and the GSD are now reacting to it.

The Politics of Economic Success and Social Conscience

2011-10-02T21:26:00.001+02:00

On several occasions I have written about the need to help the needy and disadvantaged. I have referred to prioritising expenditure accordingly and thinking hard before spending on luxuries. The basis of my belief is that in a wealthy society like Gibraltar, and we are constantly reminded that our economy is buoyant by the GSD Government and the Chief Minister, we should be able to devise a social care system that is accurately aimed and pinpointed at resolving specific problems faced by specific persons and families. Social deprivation should be capable of being eliminated in situations where there is no substance abuse.

On the substance abuse front credit must go to the GSD Government, specifically at a political level to Hubert Corby, for funding much needed facilities. Also to all those who are involved in helping those who suffer from addictions. I do not wish to concentrate on this problem, although it may well be that more needs to be done. I am, also, in writing this piece not being party political or critical of any party. My intent, based on my limited anecdotal knowledge, which I admit to immediately, is to try and offer constructive ideas, stimulate debate, bring the issue to the fore and hope that adequate solutions and measures can be found by those who are so much more knowledgeable than me on the subject.

There is, however, one factor that needs to be understood, it is that without a successful and growing economy, money is not available to dedicate to the less advantaged or for necessities. In my last blog, I identified the various "natural advantages" that Gibraltar has and can exploit to increase the wealth of our society. In order to ensure the success of those sectors of our economy, there is a need to encourage the availability of certain facilities. Two of these are luxury housing and office space. It is easy to criticise any government for getting the mix wrong. or supposedly wrong, but without such investment there would be a reduced ability to provide affordable or rental housing, health services, social care services etc. etc. It is the provision of certain physical facilities that allows our economy to grow.

Another essential element is to provide adequate and properly trained human resources in the public service. Adequate training comes with education and knowledge but also with experience. It also requires a helpful and positive attitude. A major government expenditure is the public service, in which there is much room for improvement. Unfortunately, despite the massive effort made by some public servants in certain sectors, it has to be said that the overall impression that this service gives is one of overburdening, unhelpful and reluctant bureaucracy.

Leaving aside that savings and therefore better prioritisation of resources could be achieved, an improved service will help to stimulate and accelerate economic activity. A service improved by more and better knowledge and specialisation and also by the public sector giving a better and more helpful impression. It can easily do so by providing a speedy cheerful service. Remember most of what the public service does is to administer entitlements (as opposed to discretionary privileges) that people have in law, so much can be achieved by a change of attitude that assimilating this fact would bring about.

The public service is largely paid for by the private sector. The more activity that is permitted in the private sector the more wealth that will be available for distribution. This wealth can them be applied for the benefit of the wider community and more importantly the needy and disadvantaged. This alone is not enough. It is in the application of the money that decisions are taken by governments. My belief is that in the longer term education and employment are central to reducing the call on social services. In the interim the need is to have a very focused social care system, in which I include any payments or rent reliefs given to individuals and families.

I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of persons engaged in helping the needy and disadvantaged within society to individualise the social care system in Gibraltar keeping 2 aims in mind. First the relief of poverty and hardship. Second to reduce the call on public moneys by preparing these same people for and finding them employment. Giving people money is the first stage only. That is "nanny state" stuff, which is a necessity but cannot be the end objective.

Gibraltar employs thousands of non-Gibraltarians, so it cannot be impossible to find all Gibraltarians jobs. Please let us not get into the EU freedoms debate again. That is not where I am going. I do not agree with giving preferences, what I agree with is not to encourage the choosy job culture that exists amongst many in Gibraltar. There is no shame in working at any job. It is worse not to work. Any individualised system of "hand outs" has to have safeguards and restrictions. These should be aimed at encouraging the taking up of employment by, aside from providing help, the punishment, by partial disentitlement, of those who refuse to work for no discernible good reason.

It is this point that brings me round to education as the longer term road to reducing the call on social services. I notice that from a political viewpoint education seems to concentrate on statistics: statistics that revolve around exam passes and grades. The education system seems to be directed at academic results. Undoubtedly academic prowess is the primary and most important objective but not, as seems to happen today, to the exclusion of a broader educational experience.

That wider experience should include the moulding of social skills and the encouragement of aspirations tempered by individual ability, then complemented by appropraite training. The teaching of what one's duties and responsibility to society are and of discipline. Yes many an educationalist will say that this is all the responsibility of parents. I agree, primarily it is, but it is also the duty of society to fill in the gaps left by how this is done in any particular home.

I realise that there may be a great deal of idealism in what I write but, absent initial idealism, usually a practical solution to a problem will not be found. It is likely that I will be criticised by both social care and education professionals for what I argue. I hope that I will be; it will mean that a debate will kick off. Then, just perhaps, our politicians will be helped to put together a specific solution to a specific problem in a small jurisdiction that fortunately has the wherewithal to do so, namely a buoyant economy.

"Its the Economy ... Stupid!"

2011-09-29T00:22:00.003+02:00

I have been asked to desist from writing again about the "democratic deficit" and reforms to correct it. I have been asked to write about something else. I have a commentator who keeps on telling me that its all about "the economy ... stupid!". So I will write about the economy. This subject takes me outside my comfort zone, which revolves around the law.I must quickly admit that my limited knowledge of theoretical economics is based on an "A" Level (actually "S" level that in my days, 1969-1970 school year, was one step higher than an "A" Level) in economics and politics. My practical experience is down to closely following current affairs and to having run and helped run law firms and related businesses.

Anyway, here goes. I will argue that the politics of our economy revolves around expenditure and not around the potential other area from which Gibraltar generates its wealth for the simple reason that certain factors reduce the room within which governments can manoeuvre.

There is a tendency in Gibraltar to use the word the "economy" interchangeably to mean what is in fact the economy, meaning how wealth is generated in Gibraltar and what should be termed "government finances", meaning the monies that the government receives and spends. Undoubtedly the health of government finances is directly related to and dependent on the health of the economy. Conversely, the the need to raise public revenues combined with the knock on effect that need has on the level of direct and indirect taxation impacts on the health of the economy. The reason is simple. Gibraltar's economy, like most economies relies on its competitive edge. The competitive edge of Gibraltar's economy is reliant on fiscal leverage. In simple terms this means low direct and indirect taxes because Gibraltar has no natural resources. However, it does have some 'natural' advantages.

First is its geographical location. This helps in the main 4 sectors of our economy: ship repair, port facilities, bunkering and tourism. Other than, possibly, for port facilities much of the competitive edge on the other of these 4 sectors is achieved by fiscal leverage. Comparatively lower indirect taxes on oil makes bunkering a feasible activity. Comparatively lower indirect taxes makes Gibraltar attractive to masses of day tourists who are the core of the tourist sector. I am not sure that geographical location alone is sufficient to maintain current levels in these sectors.

Second is legislative agility. Legislative agility is a double edged sword because, just as it can be used to benefit one sector, business, company or individual, it can equally be used to detract from another. Therefore, directly tied to this advantage goes the requirement for political stability and trust. It is of utmost importance that Parliament, Government and Opposition are seen and believed to be stable and to be avoiding any whimsical or impulsive behaviour.

Appropriate behaviour is required in order to portray the stability that is needed for all sectors but, primarily, for the other two major sectors of the economy: financial services and gaming. It is, however, this legislative agility that permits Gibraltar to develop these 2 sectors by being able to speedily react to situations and external factors, thus allowing Gibraltar to become an attractive jurisdiction or retain its attractiveness as a jurisdiction. One essential requirement to ensure continued growth in these two sectors is a competitive tax environment.

What this simple analysis reveals is that it is most unlikely that new areas of economic activity will be found or can be developed. So there is little or no politics to be played out on this aspect of the economy. Gibraltar has what it has and can exploit only what it has. What our government from time to time can do is maintain the fiscal leverage and use legislative agility. What our government from time to time can do is ensure prudence in expenditure and to prioritise different areas of expenditure. It is in these two aspects of economic policy that politics can be played out by the different political parties.

Too much expenditure results in too much borrowing, which in turn gives rise to revenue commitments that become fixed. In the absence of an ability to refinance or increase borrowings, which in the present international economic crisis is likely, the demands on recurrent government revenues to service capital and interest repayments continue. It can result also in the Government's liquidity being reduced.

The cure is either to reduce expenditure, which can result in austerity measures, like those being faced by many European countries, or to increase taxation. Increased taxation will adversely affect our economy which is reliant on competitive fiscal leverage. Both are options that do not bear thinking about. Additionally, the belief, encouraged on some occasions by the Chief Minister by his pronouncements on economic growth, that the international economic crisis will not touch Gibraltar is to believe that Father Christmas exists.

Lack of money in other countries, which is one aspect of the crisis, will result in less consumer and business expenditure. It will lead to a reduced demand, at a minimum, for our tourist and finance centre and other services. In time these factors can result in reduced government revenue. This reduced economic activity could lead to a downward spiral, which has to be avoided at all cost. It can only be avoided by prudent expenditure policies.

It is important at the forthcoming election to closely look at, not only policy statements contained in manifesto relating to expenditure, but also at immediate past behaviour. It is palpably obvious that the present Government is on and has for a long time maintained a spending spree with our money. I has done so to both retain power and to see if it can recover some electoral advantage. I would suggest that this behaviour, in the present international economic climate, is irresponsible and unsustainable. What we should look for is policies that espouse prudence and are not profligate, even if this course will seem a worse political offering in the short term. Prudence will stand Gibraltar in good stead in the longer term.

We should also look at the prioritisation of expenditure on necessities and not luxuries. This means prioritising expenditure that favours the needy and disadvantaged. One measure by which a society is judged is by how well it treats its people. I urge voters to be a little selfless in how they choose the next government. If they do so they will be helping others. They will also be helping themselves, in the longer term, to maintain a standard of living that will continue to be envied.

November Election? Some Current Considerations.

2011-09-25T13:11:00.003+02:00

According to a story in Panorama the Chief Minister has indicated, on a Spanish Radio programme, that the election will be held before Christmas. Leaving aside the bizarreness of the Chief Minister having ignored his own constituency in Gibraltar by making this statement in Spain, this announcement will agitate more and more speculation. Speculation about who may be leaving politics, who may be standing for election, what pre-election coalitions might be formed and who might win the election.

What is extraordinary about the whole process is that, weeks before a General Election, the electorate do not know yet who many of the candidates will be. It just seems to me to be an oddity that political parties should consider that retaining this mystery is in any way an advantage. To me it is further proof of the deficiency in party organisations. These deficiencies contribute to reducing the effectiveness of democracy in Gibraltar. It is also another factor that further helps to propagate the belief that a General Election is an election of a Chief Minister and a Leader of the Opposition. Thus rendering the election presidential in style rather than what it should be, an election for individual representatives to Parliament. It is from amongst those elected that a Chief Minister and Government is formed. 10 votes essentially become 1 vote.

The added reason for this effect that I term the "presidential effect" is that the combined lack of constituencies/wards and each voter having 10 votes means that no individual actually elects a single identifiable MP who can or will be his/her personal representative in Parliament. This is an added aspect of the existing system that contributes to the "democratic deficit". It is a further aspect of the present electoral system that needs to be looked at. Personal representation in Parliament needs to be improved. How? I am not presently sure, but solutions must exist. Resolving this issue will also reduce reliance on the Chief Minister to resolve individual problems. This will reduce the opportunity for deification of that office.

I do not believe that speculation of the nature that I have alluded to really helps to unravel what may happen at the forthcoming election. What does help is to analyse known factors. Let us look at some of these. First, we know that Peter Caruana will lead the GSD, Fabian Picardo will lead the GSLP and Keith Azopardi will lead the PDP. The leadership of each, meaning not the personality but how each leads his team, will be an or even the crucial deciding element for many in this election. Personality, however, cannot be totally discarded. It always plays its part.

Keith starts from the disadvantageous position of leading the least (by far) supported party. It is for this reason that the PDP needed a charismatic leader. It does not have it in Keith. Keith does not have it in him to enhance the electoral chances of the PDP. It must, consequently rely on two factors to do that. First its policies. Secondly its other candidates. On the first front the PDP's choices have narrowed because the other two parties have adopted democratic reforms as policies, which is what the PDP was majoring on. The result is that, now, the debate will be on detail of these reforms rather than the overall concept. On the second front, all we know to date is that the PDP has a full slate of candidates ... that Nick Cruz and Gigi Vasquez are likely candidates and little more on the identity of its candidature ... not very helpful. One would have thought that a party totally lacking in representation in Parliament would want to announce its candidature early in order to give its candidates as long a time as possible to create a public personae. It seems that this is not to be. There may be a game plan in that strategy but it escapes me.

Fabian, in the perception of some of the public, carries some personal baggage, but who does not? It is in the style of the GSD to pinpoint such baggage. I have doubts that it will impact sufficiently amongst most voters to undermine the GSLP/Liberal's chance of election. If the GSD dedicates its efforts to personal criticisms of Fabian, this has the disadvantage of distracting from real issues. I believe that the important debate is on issues. In this regard, whilst the GSLP/Liberal Alliance (not Fabian alone) must not ignore personal attacks, it must rebut them robustly, it must not do so in a manner that detracts from policies and substance.

In this regard the GSLP/Liberals have made an excellent start. It has identified the "democratic deficit" issue. It has seen the GSD's failure on this front. It has stepped into a void that the GSD had no need to leave open, nor did it have the right to do so. It promised reforms and never delivered them. There are skeptics who (a) do not believe that the GSLP/Liberals are serious on reforms and (b) say that this policy will not be central to voters' decisions on who to vote for.

On the first argument, It would be political suicide for the GSLP/Liberals not to undertake reforms having been so explicit on some e.g. freedom of information and having publicly announced its intention to reform the electoral system and Parliament following recommendations from an Independent Commission. Ignoring the Commissions report totally would also be political suicide. The process announced by the GSLP/Liberals also has the advantage that it is likely to deliver broader reforms.

On the second argument, of course there will be many other important issues and debates, but the reform one is equally or more important, certainly in the view of a large number of voters. It is also important for a completely different reason. The GSD persists with its attempts at discrediting the GSLP by constantly regurgitation the pre-1996 state of affairs but what better way to counteract the attempt to create the impression that the GSLP has not changed its spots, than to have policies that would preclude the possibility of that happening? Improved and more accountable democracy is the best check and balance to avoid a return to behaviour similar to that of those disagreeable pre-1996 days. That is not exclusively a problem attaching to the GSLP. It is something that, in the absence of systemic checks, could happen with any party in Government.

The other manner in which the electorate can be convinced that the pre-1996 image of the GSLP is finished and gone (aside from the contents of its manifesto and policies) is the standard of its candidature. One achievement is the change in leadership. Another is that most of its candidates have been in Parliament and for better or for worse are a known quantity. A third is that the standard of potential candidates so far announced is good. We have Dr Norbert Borge, Joe Cortes and George Mascarenhas who may be candidates, subject to selection. All are well respected members of the community, so long as this is the standard of candidates, such persons would not permit themselves to be in any way identified with pre-1996 style GSLP government.

What about the GSD? The massive advantage that it seems to see is that it has been in Government for 16 years and it has achieved a lot in that time. No one will deny it that. Its main achievements, however, are the reversal of the adverse image and reputation that Gibraltar had garnered before its election. However, Gibraltar will not lose its reputation ever again for similar reasons. The lesson has been learnt by all politicians in Gibraltar.

Apart form cleaning up Gibraltar's image, the reality is that the economy has been built up by the GSD on the strong foundations laid by the GSLP pre-1996 administration. This is not a criticism. It is, first, a fact and, secondly, it is necessarily so because Gibraltar's economy can only be built on opportunistically taking advantage of its limited resources: the port, its location (for tourism), size (that delimits requirements) and speed of action on fiscal and regulatory policies. The other reality is that, whilst the government has money coming in and the ability to borrow, it can spend and has the GSD spent! Let us hope that it has not been profligate to a level that the present international economic crisis will not impact badly on Gibraltar's ability to attract revenues. Otherwise in time we will realise that the GSD have bitten off more than what Gibraltar can chew.

The GSD has some electoral problems. The first is undoubtedly wastage. It will over 16 years of Government have upset individual and groups of voters. This is inevitable but makes it more important that the GSD finds other new supporters to vote for it. It will not do so by attacking the GSLP/Liberals. It will not do so by boasting of past achievements, the electorate has these in the bag already. it will only do so by having new policies and creating a new identity. It has not done much to achieve this. The perception is that it is a party lacking in continuity and in ideas. That it is a party resting on its laurels and those laurels belong to one person: Peter Caruana. It has also failed to react to changing demographics: the passing away of older voters and the advent of the young, who will have very different views from past GSD voters. The GSD are now reacting but it may be too little too late.

Additionally the one individual Minister who can be said to have worked tirelessly to positive effect in his ministry is Daniel Feetham, may not stand at the next election. He has revised and reformed large swathes of law relating to justice. I am not sure that in practice some of those reforms will not cause issues and too much expenditure for a small jurisdiction like Gibraltar but this is possibly an inevitable cost that we will need to face. I understand the reasons for his not standing; to be stabbed in the presence of his and other children is traumatic. That the stabbing happened because he was Minister for Justice is obvious. That his family and, probably, he feels the risk involved in public office is too great is obvious. My sadness both relates to the event that may force him to resign but also because he has done and behaved in his ministry as I consider an elected Minister should act and behave. He has innovated and held policies, fought for them (including the age of consent law, where the Supreme Court upheld his view), taken them to Parliament and enacted legislation. He has carved out an individual political character for himself to the benefit of his party, the GSD. He is the only person to have done this in the 16 years of GSD Government. The general perception is that all the rest that has been done by the GSD is down to one person: the Chief Minister.

Therefore the forthcoming election becomes a plebiscite on the Chief Minister. I say that because he has acted in a manner that makes it that way. I hope the other party leaders do not follow suit. I would hope that what we have seen developing so far as the election approaches continues. We have seen the PDP and the GSLP/Liberals announce and debate policies. I hope it continues that way. If the GSD attempts to reduce the election to personalities, in the main, the other parties should leave the GSD alone to get on with that tactic. I believe it is counterproductive. I believe that voters do not like it. I believe sticking to the issues and to substance will deliver more votes. The GSD may want to ponder on that suggestion too. The GSD have also made the same error as the other parties in not having announced which, if any new candidates it will present to the electorate.

When do I think the election will be held? Well the 19th October is Gibraltar day in London, so, unless the Chief Minister compounds the error made by his statement about the election on Spanish radio, by announcing the election in London, it will be announced after that date. The election cannot be held before the Electors List is closed on the 31st October. Christmas is fast approaching that leaves only a few Thursdays on which the election can be held, namely, 24th November or the 1st, 8th or 15th December. The 8th is the Immaculate Conception, which is a Catholic Holy Day of Obligation, thus it is an unlikely date, the 15th is too close to Christmas, so we are down to two dates ; we will see.

What do I think will happen at the election? Well I do not disbelieve that so many polls will have got the result too wrong. I also believe in anecdotal evidence, namely natural wastage and demographic alterations. Change is clearly visibly in the air and the GSD are doing little to put a brake on change. All in all I would predict a GSLP/Liberals win by a small but significant margin but all say that a week in politics is a long time ...

The Importance of a Third Party

2011-09-21T23:57:00.000+02:00

The recent frank interview of Keith Azopardi, leader of the PDP, published in the Chronic raised, in my mind, a train of thought about the benefits that a "third party" brings to democracy. In the United Kingdom the Liberals have survived for scores of years without forming government, except, as now, in coalition. The question is why do third parties persevere? A related question is, do they add value to democracy? My view is that the value that a third party adds is tremendous and immeasurable. let us explore why.

Undoubtedly the main ingredient that a third party injects into the democratic process is the possibility of its election into Government or Opposition, if it presents a full slate of candidates. In this sense the description "third party" is a complete misnomer. The PDP is no less a political party and, at an election, offers voters no less than does the GSD and the GSLP/Liberal Alliance. The pejorative title "third party" is only earned or attributed to a party, usually, when it has no or a minority representation in Parliament. It is extremely possible that by electoral defeat, therefore, that either the GSD or the GSLP could one day end up as the "third party".

Frequently a "third party" will be a catalyst for innovative or different policies that the mainstream parties can and do adopt on an assessment of electoral popularity and opinion in relation to these. The most permanent and current example is electoral and parliamentary reforms. In fairness, it has been the PDP who have been constant on that issue. It has put forward concrete proposals, irrespective of whether one agrees with all or some of them or seeks more reforms. It is now that the GSD and the GSLP have been spurred into action on this subject. In this way a "third party" helps to advance wider political arguments and debate of important and relevant issues and helps to innovate.

In addition to increasing the choice for electors, a "third party" fills the vacuum that can and on occasion is left behind by the demise of a party. In the past parties in Gibraltar have disappeared only to be replaced by quickly cobbled together groupings of individuals. These groups have evolved into the semblance of being political parties. Disorganised parties are not the best way for a democracy to function. The internal democratic machinery that acompanies a party is part of the democratic process. Albeit that such machinery is not compulsorily imposed by law, internal democratic procedures for selection of executive bodies and candidates for Parliament are an integral and important part of democracy.

The ability of the members of a party to call its leaders to account is equally so. This is more prevalent in some parties in Gibarltar than others. If internal party democratic accountability is lacking, the authority of any one individual within a party may develop to an unhealthy level. Such power within a party has wider consequences in a political system so lacking in checks and balances.

The existence of a "third party" also means that there are persons who have been engaged in the cut and thrust of politics for a period of time. They thus have experience, albeit limited because many will not have been MPs, of what it is to be in politics. Additionally their interest in politics will have led them to understand the intricacies and foibles of parliamentary procedures.Some knowledge of the political and governmental process is a must for a democratic society to continue functioning and to evolve.

A "third party" also offers the possibility of a hung Parliament. However remote this possibility may be in the existing electoral system, there would be no possibility at all were there were to be no "third party". Just the existence of this possibility improves the democratic process because it incentivises the man stream parties to scrutinise their own policies carefully and consequently to fine tune them in the context of the policies and arguments of and stimulated by the "third party".

Additionally, a "third party" provides a home for voters disaffected with the mainstream parties. The votes gained by a "third party" evidence this disaffection and spurs on the renewal of the policies of all the parties. By offering an alternative a "third party" also mitigates the growing "tribalism" that is prevalent in Gibraltar as between the two main parties, the GSD and the GSLP/Liberals.

All in all, my conclusion is that the PDP, in Gibraltar, should be encouraged and incentivised so that it will continue to enhance the democratic process by its very existence. I hope and trust that it will get enough support to encourage its continued existence and that it will persevere, irrespective of the election result that it achieves. The PDP have a place in Gibraltar and it is a continuing place. Just its very existence enhances the democratic process substantially and helps the evolution and maturity of Gibraltar as a political entity. I wish it well at the forthcoming election.

Finally On the Road to Greater Democracy?

2011-09-18T20:37:00.001+02:00

The GSLP/Liberals have been accused, during the debate in Parliament, of not being serious about democratic reform by the GSD. It has also been accused of its proposals being "wooly" by others. I disagree with this criticism. There has also been much debate about "who said it first", by which I mean who made democratic reform proposals first. I find this point puerile and irrelevant.

It is a bit rich for the GSD to make its criticism of the GSLP/Liberals when it has been so remiss in the 16 years that it has been in power on giving effect to reforms. The GSD are quick to remind everyone of events and failings of the GSLP in the 8 years preceding 1996. Before doing so, it should be self-critical of its own admitted failings on the subject of democratic reforms.

It is no excuse to say that the failings of the pre-1996 GSLP government were greater. The GSD got into power with a promise to precisely to put right the wrong that then existed in terms of the perceived oppressiveness of the GSLP administration. It was to give us open, transparent and democratic government. Its failure on this front is of huge import as it was a central promise made by the GSD to put right a wrong committed by the GSLP that was so palpable at the time.

Additionally, harping back to the past does not bode well for the GSD in this election. It is the GSD that has been in power for 16 years. It is the GSD who will be more susceptible to criticisms of past failings that are more recent and accordingly fresher in people's minds. A campaign that promises nothing new from the GSD will also not assist to improve its electoral chances. Negative and personally critical campaigning is also destructive and so anathema to democracy.

I do not believe that it is not enough for there to be a debate about systemic changes to the democratic process. I believe that there is a need also to change attitudes in politics by making issues and not personalities the subject of any campaign. Reforms to the political system can help to enhance this aim by creating a better environment for debating issues rather than personalities. It will not work, however, without a change in attitude. This change requires the locking up at home of personal dislikes by one against another and not allowing these to take over the election arguments. The reforms will certainly not help to reduce personality based criticisms at the forthcoming election because no reforms will be enacted or were intended by any politician would be enacted by that time.

The position of each of the three main parties on reforms is now clear. The PDP have published extensive reform proposals, the GSD have forced a motion through Parliament with less extensive reforms that in my opinion are not sufficiently wide ranging. Also they have not been properly thought through. The GSLP/Liberals have published an intent to establish an independent commission to look into and recommend reforms of the electoral system and to Parliament. The breadth of the terms of reference of that independent commission are staggeringly wide. Wider than the proposals of both the GSD and the PDP.

It is impossible to justify a criticism of the GSLP/Liberals being "wooly"on this issue without implying by that same criticism a simultaneous belief that, if the GSLP/Liberals were to form government after the next election, it would not enact any reforms. Is such a criticism sustainable? I do not believe it it is. It would mean that a newly elected government would be ignoring the very central policy that it seems to be gearing up to fight the forthcoming election on. Such behaviour would be cynical and disdainful of the electorate. It would simply guarantee a new GSLP/Liberal administration an election loss at the immediately next following election, not least, because the other parties would immediately fill the gap left by that administration by its own ommission. It is for this reason that the GSLP/Liberals, also, cannot be criticised for supposedly not being serious about democratic reforms.

The important place that has been reached by Gibraltar is that democratic reforms of some sort will now happen because all the parties have put it on their agenda. The reality is that only those politicians who form a government can legislate to put these in place. The decision that has to be taken at the next election, therefore is who will actually effect changes? Will it be a party, the GSD, that has failed to do so in breach of its promise over 16 years of government? Will it be the PDP, or will it be stymied by the impossibility of it forming government? Or will it be the GSLP/Liberals who will take advice from an independent commission before deciding what reforms to adopt and give effect to?

Oh, to those who do not believe that there are no suitable independent minded persons in Gibraltar to form part of the independent commission, you cannot possibly then be believers in Gibraltar's ability to govern itself at all. Your criticism, to be sustainable, would need to extend to any of the judiciary, the civil service, the Ombudsman and any other tribunal or committee or authority established by law. I am not so cynical. If those critics were to be right, the whole reform debate is an irrelevance and a waste of time and Gibraltar could never aspire to self-determination.

Blurring of the Separation of Power: Some Further Observations

2011-09-15T12:37:00.001+02:00

Tomorrow is the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year. It is apt, therefore, that the theme of this blog should be on a subject with a jurisdrudential bent. Maintaining the central role of the judiciary is an essential plank of any free society and of the upholding of democratic principles. Central to the ability to do so is the separation of powers. One major element of such separation is the existence of an independent and impartial judiciary; importantly both as a substantive reality but also in terms of perception. An independent legal profession is closely connected also with the ability to access justice. It is the subject of the separation of powers that I touch on again but from a slightly different perspective.

On the 1st November 2009 the Constitution (Declaration of Compatibility) Act 2009 (the "Act") was deemed to come into effect. This Act, promoted and passed in Parliament by the GSD Government, authorised the Chief Minister or any other Minister, so authorised by the Chief Minister, to seek declarations from the Supreme Court of Gibraltar on whether any law or Bill or any part of any such instrument is within or without the provisions of the Constitution. It is my view that this Act should be repealed immediately for the reasons I will now give

I have made in the recent past several criticisms of this Act. These criticisms have been brought to mind again by a passage that I read in the late Lord Bingham's book "The Rule of Law", which was recently published by Penguin books. Lord Bingham, for non-lawyers who are unlikely to know, has been described as "... the most eminent of [the UK's] judges...". He was recently successively Master of the Rolls, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales and Senior Law Lord of the United Kingdom. Lord Bingham's views on this subject, as contained in his book, are necessarily given from his perspective as a very senior judge. They are, in my view, the other side of the coin to the political perspective from which I made my critiicisms of the Act in Llanito World. Therefore, before I refer you to Lord Bingham's passage, I will remind the reader of the main thrust of my criticisms. These criticisms were made in the context of what has become to be known as the "gay age of consent case".

On the 28th March 2010 in my blog entitled "Age of Consent, Gay Rights and Government" (http://llanitoworld.blogspot.com/2010/03/age-of-consent-gay-rights-and.html) I wrote:

"The judiciary applies laws it does not propose, sponsor or make them. It does not decide policy, that is the responsibility of governments. If a government ... seeks to hide behind the judiciary before passing what they perceive to be unpopular laws, that it has a legal obligation to pass, it is cowardice"

On the the 31st march 2010 in my blog entitled "Gay Rights, Direct Rule and a Government in Crisis?" (http://llanitoworld.blogspot.com/2010/03/gay-rights-direct-rule-and-government.html) I wrote:

"The compulsion to vote to end discrimination does not arise from any declaration made by the Supreme Court; that is simply a statement of existing law. It arises by the clear and unequivocal reality of the law ... The right path is not to misspend our money on a vauous crusade seeking to be told by the Supreme Court what is so widely known already."

On the 10th April 2011 in my blog entitled "Age of Consent- Sense and Independence" (http://llanitoworld.blogspot.com/2011/04/age-of-consent-sense-and-independence.html) I wrote:

"One political debate revolves around the government using the courts to overcome politically sensitive debate and controversy ...This question arises because the litigation was brought to Court by the executive arm of government in the guise of the Chief Minister and the Attorney General. ... Recourse to a judicial decision ... should only have been necessary if somone's rights had been transgressed."

Let us now look at what Lord Bingham wrote relating:

"... to a legislative proposal made in Britain in 1928 which, would if enacted, have permitted a Minister, if it appeared to him that a substantial question of law had arisen, to submit the question to the High Court, which, after hearing such parties as it thought proper, would give its opinion on the question. The proposal was the subject of a sustained attack by the judicial members of the House of Lords. The thrust of the criticism. was expressed by one judge (Lord Merrivale), who said ' it is no part of the business of Her Majesty's judges, and never has been part of their business, at any rate since the Act of Settlement, to have any advisory concern in the acts of the Administration. The vice in the proposal is not hard to see. If judges, almost certainly on hypothetical facts, advise the government that a certain course of conduct would be lawful, they disable themselves from ruling on the question in an independent and impartial way when, in due course, a litigant, on real facts, challenges the lawfulness of the conduct'."

All in all the case to repeal the Act is overwhelming. Parliament should recognise this. It should act forthwith to repeal this law. The Act only serves to compromise the sacrosanct independence and impartiallity of the judiciary, through no fault of the judiciary. Also, it blurs the lines of responsibility and the separation of powers of and between each arm of government. Further, it transfers an obligation that is that of the legislature to the judiciary. This transfer of functions is so clearly something that is intrinsically wrong.

What this Act also exemplifies is the need for a wider debate on this type of legislative proposal than that which the present make up of Parliament permits. The lack of sufficient separation of powers between the executive and the legislature, together with the abscence of a second house of Parliament, results in a narrowing of the participants in the debate. This increases the odds of legislative mistakes being made. It is not that I advocate the creation of a second house of Parliament (god forbid!). I do continue, however, to advocate a rethink of how our Parliament is presently constituted to widen the knowledge and experience available in the legislative process and to increase accountability.

National Day, Self-Determination, UK and Spain

2011-09-11T20:03:00.003+02:00

Everyone enjoyed National Day tremendously, as usual, but, whatever the GSD may believe or preach, it is a day also for political contemplation. It is this consideration that militates toward all leaders of all political parties issuing a message on that day. It is worth considering and analysing what each has said. It is then my intention to finish this blog with my own brief explanation of how I consider that progress on the path towards the final goal, namely self-determination can be made, at this juncture after the 2006 Constitution.

The Chief Minister, in a message that is noteworthy for its brevity, emphasised the celebratory aspect of National Day, saying that it is a day on which "... we celebrate Gibraltar within our families, friends and in community." His only political allusions were to Gibraltar's successful economy with the consequent lack of social distress. He said also that "Gibraltar is politically strong because we are united on fundamental issues affecting our political rights as a people, and in our determination to see them prevail".

The later sentence has three aspects which are significant:

He does not disclose exactly what, in his mind, is the issue that unites Gibraltar, so it is left to us to assume he is referring to the international status of Gibraltar.
Is he referring to all political parties being united on this undefined issue? If he is, then it is not obvious from the manner in which he behaves toward other political parties and their leaders.
He makes no reference to decolonisation or self-determination. There again he cannot, can he? He has said that under the 2006 Constitution Gibraltar ceased to be a colony. Further that the referendum that agreed the 2006 Constitution was an act of self-determination. He can hardly go back on these, in my view inaccurate statements (as analysed in my blog "http://llanitoworld.blogspot.com/2011/08/self-determination-delusion.html) or now say that Gibraltar has not exercised its right to self-determination. The latter is especially so, as the question asked at the referendum was framed by him in terms of it being an exercise in self-determination. Or can't he? He has made comments about an Andorra solution, which indicate that even he thinks that there is some way to go on the road to self-determination.

All in all a very politically insipid message, but having backed himself into a corner by past pronouncements, it is difficult to see how he can say much more, without saying anything that would be more electorally unpopular.

I turn now to Fabian Picardo, the Leader of the Opposition's message. One thing is that it was certainly longer but not too long to deter people from reading it. He makes reference in it to the date, 10th September. It is the anniversary of the 1967 referendum. His reference is on the basis that, by this annual event, we are remembering the 1967 referendum. That cannot be so. The vote on that day in 1967 was the antithesis of both the quest for nationhood and self-determination. It was the date on which Gibraltar voted overwhelmingly to remain a British colony. It was, however, different times to now but, in my own mind, the significance of having National Day on the 10th September is not remembrance. It is that it was a significant date connected with a democratic expression of its wishes by the people of Gibraltar at that very difficult juncture in our recent history.

His most significant political comments, however, are first, that irrespective of the adoption of the 2006 Constitution there should be no diminution in the assertion of political rights as a nation and the right to self-determination. Secondly he makes an odd, and in my view gratuitous and unnecessary, reference to having to " ... defeat those who would relish the disappearance of Gibraltar as a distinct Nation and to try to stifle our further progress in the process of decolonisation and the assertion of our rights." Gratuitous and unnecessary because, if he was referring to the UK or Spain. he should have identified them. He did not, so he must have been implicitly referring to persons in Gibraltar, specifically other political parties. I do not believe there are any such persons in significant enough numbers to merit such a comment. It is playing at divisive rather than adversarial politics. Dividing Gibraltar is not a positive way for politics to be played out in Gibraltar, irrespective of the GSD's penchant for following that course.

He then goes on to say "The clear message that we have to send to those who challenge our right to our land is that the Spanish flag will never fly over any part of our Gibraltar." This statement only serves to antagonise. It does not take our cause anywhere. It is so obvious that we need to stop repeating it. Repetition simply weakens our cause. It is clear that the present mood of Gibraltar (and likely the long term mood) is not to make any accommodation with Spain on the fundamental issue of sovereignty. The UK knows this and has given its commitment in the 2006 Constitution. Spain knows it but will not desist from pursuing its claim. It is unlikely that we will change any of these factors in the foreseeable future, nor would we want to change the UK's opinion on this point. We need to live with them for now and take advantage of and rest easy with the UK's commitment, whilst remaining vigilant and alert. What is dangerous is to join up the fight for decolonisation with the wish not to accommodate Spain's claim on sovereignty. The first has to be pursued. The latter has to be resisted. That the latter affects the first, presently, perhaps. That is a consideration that needs to be managed, not rushed and made worse with hyperbole.

Keith Azopardi, leader of the PDP suddenly seems to be tiptoeing on many issues. Why might that be? On National Day he also (as well as the Chief Minister) emphasises the celebratory aspects. He alludes to its political importance only in terms of the past struggles for constitutional developments and as to the future in terms of "... the continuing struggle to assert our rights internationally because of Spanish opposition." Spanish opposition only? It is not opposition that we get from Spain it is an assertion of the rights conceded under the Treaty of Utrecht and a pursuit of its claim for the return of Gibraltar. I commend Keith to read the Despatch to the 2006 Constitution in which the UK precludes Gibraltar from the option of independence because of the Treaty of Utrecht.

He also refers to the political rally forming " ... but a small part of the overall celebrations." Hence one reason for my reference to his tiptoeing. What does he say is the significance of the political rally? he suggests that it is to "... reflect on the political aspects of our sovereignty, our rights, our self-determination and our resolute wish to exist as a separate people in mutual respect with neighbouring communities." "Reflect"is a word far removed from "campaigning" or "aspiring" or "achieving" or many other, more powerful, positive and optimistic words that he could have chosen. Perhaps he needs to tread a careful path because he was one of the architects of the 2006 Constitution whilst he was a Minister in the GSD Government.

Have all of them given up on immediate progress on achieving self-determination in the foreseeable future? It seems clear to me that each of them has measured his words carefully on this issue, the Chief Minister more so than the others. It may be that this use of diplomatic or careful language on the subject of self-determination is motivated by a desire not to encourage a belief in the electorate that further progress on self-determination is round the corner. I agree that progress on overall self-determination will be slow. I said as much in the blog "The Self-Determination Delusion", to which you will find a link early on in this piece.

I do, however, believe that there is another path to self-determination that will take us to the destination over time. It is a path that needs to avoid inflammatory statements and behaviour towards both Spain and the UK, however great the provocation might be from time to time. It is a path that requires a defined, very close and inclusive working relationship with the UK on matters of government and administration. There is no need to react adversely toward any approach or interest shown by the UK in matters of the administration of Gibraltar, especially if based on a mistaken belief that such reaction is a sign of not being a decolonized people. All mature nations and decolonized people work in conformity and co-operation with each other, without it being a submissive colonial relationship. It only becomes so if it is done self-consciously in that belief. We should learn to act in the same mature manner as independent nations act and not self-consciously and defensively as colonised persons act, which is contrary to our interests.

Finally my suggested path is one that requires our successive governments to strive for the highest degree of good governance and a strict adherence to the Rule of Law. What is the Rule of law? Well it is a massively complex subject. I have just finished reading a 250 page book by Lord Bingham "The Rule of Law" published by Penguin. I strongly recommend it to all. It is an easy read for both lawyers and non-lawyers. It debates interesting and topical and current subjects and the impact of those issues on the Rule of Law and of the Rule of Law on how those issues have been dealt with recently. Lord Bingham briefly (but with great depth) defines the Rule of Law as the principle:

"... that all persons and authorities within the state, whether public or private, should be bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws publicly made, taking effect (generally) in the future and publicly administered in the courts."

Lord Bingham's definition captures the functions of each of the Legislature, the Executive (which importantly is bound by the law and can only act under the authority of law enacted in and by Parliament, within what is permitted by the 2006 Constitution) and the Judiciary. He then explains his brief definition in great detail.

My point is that, upon each arm of government abiding strictly by the Rule of Law in Gibraltar, the powers reserved to the UK under the 2006 Constitution to ensure good governance are incapable of use against us. The result is that de facto Gibraltar slowly advances its status as a self-governing territory. This is progress down the path of self-determination without reliance upon any third parties. Going forward in this fashion will also enhance our case immeasurably in the eyes of the international community. It will lead us to a time when self-determination for Gibraltar can and will become more acceptable amongst a greater number of nations and organisations. Gibraltar's goal will be reached in a changed international environment to which change Gibraltar will have contributed.

Agreement on Governmental Reforms?

2011-09-07T19:28:00.001+02:00

So parliamentary reform is now fairly and squarely on the political agenda and set to take up some of the debate at the now imminent general election. The positive step is that now all political parties are agreed that parliamentary reforms are necessary, the PDP having been the first party to publish specific policies on this subject. Electoral reform is also on the agenda of the GSLP and the PDP. It does not form part of the GSD motion that was forced through Parliament using the Government majority. The CM has simply said, on the subject of electoral reform, that this was slipped into the GSLP amended motion. The GSD has not announced any policy on electoral reforms as yet.

The negative step is that, once again and par for the course, there is a move away from the substantive debate into the game of party political accusations and counter-accusations. Yes it is true that the GSLP voted against the GSD Government sponsored motion in Parliament. However, is it true, as the PDP has said in its press release, that this vote indicates that the GSLP do not have a commitment to the reforms? The press release further implies that there was a possibility that the size of Parliament could or would be increased before the next election. In fact a 12 month period is given to a Select Committee of the whole Parliament to consider the content of the Motion. This timetable, is indicative, clearly, that no one intended any reforms to be in place before the forthcoming election. I do not consider that events in Parliament support, at all, the suggestion of the PDP, and indeed that of the GSD implied in the CM's reply in the debate in Parliament, that the GSLP do not have a commitment to enact parliamentary and electoral reforms. The evidence points in exactly the opposite direction.

The GSLP have already issued press releases committing to wider reforms than just electoral and parliamentary reforms. For example it has given a commitment to enact a wide ranging Freedom of Information Act, with retrospective effect. That is indicative of an opposite intent. This opposite intent is palpable, also, from a proper and careful analysis of events (as published in the local press) in Parliament and a comparison of the motions of each of the GSD and the GSLP.

In his intervention Fabian Picardo made clear and absolute the Opposition's support for most of the GSD's motion. It is abundantly clear that reform has cross party support. So what does the GSD's motion contain?

It suggests more frequent question time, well this is not a reform at all, this can be achieved immediately.
It proposes parliamentary committees, again there is ample provision already to allow this to be implemented immediately.
It wants more frequent meetings of Parliament to allow more opportunity for Opposition motions, well this is already in the gift of the CM.
Broadcasting of meetings on TV is a further proposal, well the legislation to allow that is already in place.
A review of Standing Orders, again that can be done without any legislation.
it proposes an increase in the number of MPs to allow for backbenchers, who would receive a "nominal attendance allowance".

So, other than for the increase in numbers of MPs, there is really nothing to the GSD Government's proposals. It is just an admission of past procedural failings that have been used by government after government to reduce parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. This behaviour has, thus, made government more opaque for the electoral advantage of the incumbent governing party from time to time. Most can be implemented without discussion or legislative change.

As for the increase in the number of MPs, that is something that I have advocated. I stand by that proposal but it is not that simple. Thought has to be given, for example, to how these will be elected or appointed. If appointed, what criteria would be applied and what powers would appointed persons have? Additional thought needs to be given to what rules will be applied to avoid the CM from increasing the number of "Ministers". Such action would negate the effect of having more MPs in manner that would result in an element of the separation of powers between the executive and the legislature. There is much more to consider, think about and bring into argument before a bland increase in the number of MPs would resolve the issues of accountability and transparency that need resolution.

In this context it becomes difficult to take seriously some of the pronouncements of the CM during the debate of his motion in Parliament. He variously said:

"We know what's wrong with this Parliament"
"We know what needs fixing"
"Who is there, out there in Gibraltar, that knows that"
"Who is there, out there in Gibraltar, that is not involved in politics in Gibraltar that knows even how this Parliament works, let alone how it can be fixed."

Well, leaving aside the disdain and contempt that these comments show for voters and their level of knowledge, he contradicts himself. He contradicts himself because he admitted, in that same debate, that the issue of Parliamentary reform was not a priority issue for the GSD Government. He said that it had become one due to public debate on political websites and social media sites. Well at least those participating in those debates ( and enough have in order to cause the GSD to react) must know what is wrong, what needs fixing and how Parliament works. Otherwise why did he pay attention to public opinion and react to it? Additionally all he needs to do is listen to the many conversations constantly being had on this subject in Gibraltar. It is also worthy of note that most of what the GSD has included in its proposals are issues brought to public attention on this blog ... so at least this blogger knows a little. These statements simply evidence the self-righteousness that I highlighted in my immediately preceding blog.

A worthy exercise to determine how serious each party is on the issue of reforms is to contrast the GSD motion that was forced through Parliament with the one proposed by the GSLP. First let us contrast statements made by the Leader of the Opposition during the debate:

"The way that Parliament works has been shaped by people"
"The public in Gibraltar ... should have an influence on what we do"
"Reforms must bring us closer to the electorate because many people see us as remote ..."

These are democratic and inclusive pronouncements, totally the opposite of the exclusive, autocratic and dismissive (of the electorate) statements made by the CM.

Let me turn now to the motion proposed by the GSLP, its main components are:

It proposed the setting up of the Gibraltar Commission on Democratic and Political Reform to consider and report to Parliament on electoral and parliamentary reform.
This Commission would invite and consider public representations and report to Parliament within 12 months.
Then either Parliament or a Referendum would within 3 months decide on reforms to be implemented within 6 months.
Electoral reform and parliamentary reform terms of reference are drafted in the widest of terms.

These are not proposals that can be said to indicate an aversion to reform. These proposal rather indicate a desire to widen the scope of the reforms. This interpretation is especially so if taken in the context of the acceptance in Parliament by the GSLP of the need for reforms. Certainly the inclusion of consideration of electoral reforms by the GSLP do widen substantially the scope proposed in the GSD motion.

The reaction of the CM to the Commission suggested by the GSLP is mistaken. The CM suggested that it was "a retrograde step" because Parliament should decide how to conduct its own business, otherwise its sovereignty would be diluted. This is not so. The use of Commissions by sovereign Parliaments is widespread in the UK and elsewhere. The sovereignty of Parliament remains unaffected. In the end it is Parliament that debates and decides on what the final reforms will be and then enacts laws in the form that it alone decides to give effect to its own decisions, not those of any Commission. It may be that these views coincide but the sovereign legislative process is undertaken by Parliament. The objection to the Commission in the end amounts to the same self-righteous reasoning as the belief and opinion that only those in Parliament are capable of suggesting reforms to itself. This is the same error of judgment as was made in relation to the manner in which proposals to reform the Constitution were formulated. This was done solely by a Select Committee of Parliament, rather than a Constitutional Conference of Representative Bodies together with Parliamentarians

The reaction of the PDP to the Oppositions stance is predictable but also not understandable. It betrays a desire to promote a hurried and ill-thought out increase in the number of MPs, without peripheral reforms to the electoral system or thought given to the details of how this would work. The increase in the number of MPs was never going to be achieved before the forthcoming election as the PDP suggests. It is also significant that the PDP wants this change urgently. Does it perceive it as an immediate way into Parliament? I would have thought the PDP is better off not only insisting on an increased number of MPs but also on seeking proportional representation. Also this reform in isolation from other wider reforms will not give the PDP the oversight of Government that is required. I believe patience is in the PDPs interests and in its favour.

So all in all, there has been a major and positive advance towards the reform of Parliament and towards the reform of the electoral system. The advance is only in terms that all the parties having boarded the "reform train". The destination of the train is still unknown. It is that destination that is important for democracy in Gibraltar. The Motion passed in Parliament on Monday alone is not sufficient for the GSD to persuade electors of the GSD's democratic leanings. It has been in power too long, having done nothing on that front, for the electorate to be fobbed off with so little. I am afraid that the GSD will need to do better in the election campaign but its credibility will be tainted by the paucity of that Motion. I wonder how the GSD will be able to counteract the effect of and if the GSLP roll out a programme of democratic reforms during the election. It seems to me that the GSD has lost the initiative on this issue. The initiative has been taken by the GSLP, although, in all fairness, the first and main proponents of reform have been the PDP.

Election Fervour Starts?

2011-09-05T09:30:00.001+02:00

No one, except for the Chief Minister, can know when the election will be called. Speculation that it will be soon is rife. There are some who say that it may be called as early as Monday with the election being held on the first Thursday of October. I still think it will be a little longer before it is held. I maintain the likely dates are either the last Thursday in October or the first Thursday in November. For the CM to leave it till later is for him to reduce his options and make the date of the election too obvious. There is also little that he can now do to improve his party's chances of success at the ballot box by prolonging its present term of office.

In reality the date does not matter too much. The GSLP has started its campaign already. They are jumping into a massive political vacuum that has been, very unwisely, left by the GSD's failure. Its failure to do that which was one of the fundamental reason for the GSD's original electoral success in 1996: to deliver democratic, fair, open and transparent government. The delivery of that policy is not a subjective one but one that it should have delivered systemically and objectively.

The failure of the GSD to deliver reforms to the electoral and parliamentary system in Gibraltar, following its promises in 1996 to introduce more open and transparent government, is unforgivable; more especially so following the implementation of the 2006 Constitution. The GSD Government has tampered around the edges of providing open and transparent government. For example, the 2006 Constitution has provisions that allow for reforms. It has enacted, for example, a Data Protection Act that includes disclosure of information provisions. These are limited both in law and more limited in practice, by reason of the restrictive (and wrong in my view) interpretation given to the exercise of his powers by the Data Protection Commissioner. The requirement to enact such legislation is an EU requirement. Therefore even the introduction of that law was not a voluntary act on the part of the GSD Government. It also, by way of example, established an Ombudsman with restrictive legal powers. Further, it has undertaken reforms of tribunals and authorities but in a manner that centralises power back to the executive, meaning, in practice, the Chief Minister. All in all a cynical, churlish and very selfish charade to give the impression that the GSD Government was providing the open and transparent government that was so central to its policies in the 1996 election, when, in reality and on careful analysis, it has not done so.

The reality is that the GSD, despite the inclusion of the words "social" and "democrat" in its name, has proved itself to be a right of centre party with some of its elected members being much further to the right than others. It certainly has a Catholic social conscience but the Catholic leanings of some of its elected members did not permit it, initially, to change laws in conformity with its legal obligation to do so contained in the 2006 Constitution and international law. This is proven by the fracas that arose from the attempt to change the law on the age of consent for sex. The basis of the objection was on Catholic religious teachings, which are fine but it is for adherents of Catholicism to keep to them, as is the requirement not to sin. This theology, however, should not be imposed on the community at large by a secular government.

This self-same philosophy and ethos, is also that which has led to self-righteousness amongst some of the higher placed members of the GSD. This is the belief that they are the arbiters of right and wrong in our democracy and that it is they who subjectively deliver democracy, openness and transparency. This belief is what the history of the last century has taught us can be dangerous, leading to autocracy. Democratic, open and transparent government is not delivered subjectively. It is delivered objectively and guaranteed by systems and checks and balances that are established and need to be institutionalised. The GSD promised in 1996 to deliver to us democratic, open and transparent government. It may feel that it has done so at a subjective level. It is not for them self-righteously to judge this. It is for the electorate to do so at each election. Subjective delivery is not sufficient, even were it to be true that it has been delivered. I would argue that it has not. It was the duty of the GSD, arising from its solemn promise to the electorate, to undertake early on a reform of the electoral and parliamentary system. The aim of this reform being to deliver objective safeguards to guarantee continuous democratic, open and transparent government by all and any elected administration. The GSD has singularly failed to do so.

The most inexplicable aspect of the GSD's bahaviour, or better still its omissions to implement systemic and objective changes to ensure open and transparent government, is that it has allowed an enormous political vacuum to develop. It is the vacuum that has been referred to, so frequently, in this blog as the "democratic deficit". This issue has now become the subject matter of a very instructive piece by Leo Olivero in a recent edition of Panorama newspaper. It is politically naive, in the extreme, for the GSD to have allowed this void to develop.

It is a vacuum that is now being filled intelligently and with honesty and vigour by the GSLP. I have reason to believe and hope that the GSLP will over the next few weeks continue to fill it as it announces its agenda for democratic cabinet government. It is such an obvious area of deficiency in democracy in Gibraltar that the GSLP has simply walked in and started to fill the political hole left by the GSD and first identified in this blog. It is too late for the GSD to do anything about this debate that is developing in the political arena. Any reforms that the GSD belatedly says it will bring about, or that it takes steps to bring about will be seen as a cynical attempt at doing too little too late and opportunistically in order only to improve its electoral chances. That the GSD has been driven reluctantly to move on its promised reforms is obvious to see. I do not believe that the electorate is so gullible.

The argument that some important GSD supporters are propagating is that the GSLP will not actually give effect to any of the democratic policies that it is now beginning to roll out. They support this argument with the same boring historical evidence, namely, that in the last GSLP administration it did nothing to espouse such democratic policies. This argument is falacious in several respects. First Fabian Picardo is the Leader now. He has more modern and democratic credentials than Joe Bosanno, who is a true red socialist of the late 60's and 70's. Few such socialists believed in absolute democracy. They believed rather more in the left wing principles and dogma of the then trade union movement. Second the policies are being made public by the GSLP in detailed and well explained press releases. It would be truly foolish of the GSLP to believe that it could attain success at the polls at the forthcoming election only then to ignore such central policy statements whilst retaining an expectation of re-election 4 years later.

I happen to believe that the GSLP will implement the reforms that it is announcing also because it is and has always been committed to self-determination. The 2006 Constitution is with us for a number of decades. One way to self-determination that is open to Gibraltar, for the present, is for our own government and people to maturely debate and walk a path of modern and democratic government by itself, without any need to convince the UK. We need to undertake major reforms that are possible and permissible within the 2006 Constitution. These will reduce the scope for the exercise by the UK of its extensive reserve powers under the 2006 Constitution because such a move would be so palpable anti-democratic. This path is so clear and obvious to me that I cannot conceive that the GSLP has not seen it also and that it will not follow it. As for the GSD, I am afraid it is too late for it to have any credibility on these issues. It has allowed, by not doing it itself and leaving the ground open to be filled, the GSLP to step into undertaking the very policies that it was the GSD's manifesto commitment to have implemented in the last 16 years. It has failed itself, its adherents and Gibraltar on this fundamentally important issue.

Can I categorically predict that the the GSLP will win the next election? No, of course, like all others, I cannot. I can say two things, however, first that I get the distinct impression, from talking to people, that change is in the air. Secondly that the majority of the opinion polls predict a GSLP win. I accept that Opinion Polls do not necessarily accurately foretell the actual result of an election. I accept that the only poll that counts is the election result itself. All that said, one cannot ignore the evidence wholly. Also, the mere fact that the GSD have allowed the GSLP room to move into a policy void that was its domain is an enormous strategic error that it is too late for the GSD to redress.

Whenever the election might be, I believe that the GSD has not left itself much room for maneuvre on what will be central issues in the next election. I predict that these will be in the domestic and not the international arena. Policy on the international issue, Spain, is clear and all political parties are clear on it. The noises coming from the Spanish Government signal a failure of the GSD policy of rapprochement on practical matters. Sovereignty is not being allowed to be discussed within the tripartite forum, as the GSD proclaim that it would have liked. Domestic issues will reign at the next election. The GSD cannot rest on what it perceives to be its past economic, housing and other successes. These are in the bag and being enjoyed by the electorate already. Additionally the GSD Government has committed many errors that I have no doubt will be exploited to the full by the GSLP at the forthcoming election.

Personally, I would counsel the GSLP to run a constructive and clean campaign. after all it is the GSD that considers itself to be the clean "good boy" of politics. Does and will the GSD's behavior support this? Calling the Leader of the Opposition a liar and introducing a Motion to be debated in our skewed Parliament indicates otherwise. Time alone will tell. but could it be that the GSD will become the bullies during the forthcoming election campaign? That would be a complete reversal of positions as perceived during the 1996 election campaign, when the GSLP were the pariahs.

Codes of Conduct

2011-09-01T18:38:00.000+02:00

The recent announcement by the GSLP/Liberal Alliance that it will support and promote a Ministerial code of Conduct is very welcome news. What is further welcome news is today's announcement that a GSLP/Liberal Alliance Government will introduce a Freedom of Information Act. A suggestion that was made in this blog some weeks ago. Perhaps, at long last, I will be able to get a copy of that elusive letter from the CM to the Chaiman of the FSC that led to my resignation. Certainly the announcement is that past information will also be made available. May I suggest to the CM and/or the FSC that they may wish to pre-empt that happening and let me have that letter now? I still doubt they will, gosh I feel so important to be the subject of such a majorly top secret letter. Especially as the FSC has got its policy so biased, as I have explained in an earlier blog. More about that on another day, after the next FSC meeting at which I am told the policy is going to be looked at again.

Today let me go back to the issue of conduct of politicians. I have undertaken some research on this subject. In the UK there are two codes. One applies to all MPs. The other to Ministers. They are interrelated. What has surprised me is that they are both so basic. I find it extraordinary that those who govern actually need to be told such basic and simple principles. Perhaps, it is just a reflection of the world that we live in. Despite that criticism, I have no doubt whatsoever that such codes are needed in Gibraltar, more so than in many other jurisdictions.

Let me take you through some broad brush issues dealt with in the Code that applies to MPs. Importantly, it applies to all aspects of public life. The General Principles are:

1. Selflessness: the public interest is paramount, including not seeking or gaining financial or other material benefits for oneself, friends and family.

2. Integrity: they should not place themselves in a position with others that will or might influence their decisions.

3. Objectivity: choices on making public appointments and awarding contracts should be made on merit.

4. Accountability: including submitting to scrutiny.

5. Openness: taking decisions and actions openly and giving reasons for these.

6. Honesty: including declarations of interest, resolving any in manner that protects the public interest.

7. Leadership.

In addition MPs must conduct themselves in a manner that maintains and strengthens trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament and not in a manner that brings it or its members into disrepute. Should I at this stage remind readers of the accusations of lying made by the Chief Minister of the Leader of the Opposition, followed by a soon to be debated motion against him? How this maintains this rule of conduct completely escapes me. It smack to me of behavior in a despotic and totalitarian state.

Turning now to the basic principles of the Ministerial code. The general principles are:

1. Collective responsibility amongst all Ministers.

2. Duty to account to Parliament.

3. The provision of accurate and truthful information to Parliament.

4. Ministers need to be open with Parliament.

5. The requirement for civil servants to give evidence to Parliamentary Committees.

6. Avoidance of conflicts of interest between private and public interests by Ministers.

7. Non-acceptance of gifts by Ministers.

8. Not to use government resources for Party political purposes.

9. The upholding of the political impartiality of the civil service.

I am sure I need not enlarge on where there are very apparent failures in Gibraltar. What is a concern is who will enforce any codes that may result from the GSLP/Liberal Alliance initiative? In the UK it is Parliament for the MPs code and the Prime Minister for the Ministerial code. The issue at stake in this is the sacrosanct sovereignty of Parliament (subject, in Gibraltar, to constitutional constraints because it is a subsidiary legislature, most importantly the power of the UK to ensure good governance and compliance with international obligations). If an external authority has the power then it undermines this democratically justified sovereignty. A solution is to have an appointed Independent Parliamentary Authority that at predetermined intervals, say every six months, publishes any findings, favorable or adverse, about conduct. Thereafter, it is left to public opinion to take its toll and/or the Chief Minister of the day to take remedial action to improve the chances of his or her party at the next following election. However, the solution to this question has to be carefully thought through and implemented for the benefit of democracy and good governance.

Political Conduct

2011-08-29T10:36:00.000+02:00

There is now an acknowledgment by all political parties that there is a need to improve conduct in public life. The PDP recognised as much by proposing reforms of Parliament and of the electoral system. The GSLP/Liberals have not only recognized the need for such reforms but now have put codes of conduct on the political map in Gibraltar. The sadness of all this is that it was the GSD that was elected into government in 1996 with a promise to clean up Gibraltar's image and of good governance. 16 years on, the best that it comes up with is minor proposals for reform and an admission that they have failed to carry out this central and core policy that was promised by them to the electorate. Yes, it may be that in terms of the fast launch saga Gibraltar's image has been cleaned up by 16 years of GSD administration. This cannot, however, be a good reason to keep them in Government. This sorry episode was ended, never to to be resumed by any future administration. There is a new issue on this front today that needs to be tackled.

The image of a jurisdiction is greatly dependent on the image of its government. It is not realities that produce a good or a bad image, although realities play a big part. It is perception that goes to the root of image. Perception of the GSD Government on this front is fast becoming tainted. It is irrelevant whether there is good or bad reason for this. I would think that its record of omission on the subject of parliamentary and electoral reform is such as would give credence to the image of the GSD Government that is evolving. The central question is what good reason could there be for this failure? I shall leave the reader to come to his/her own conclusion.

In the course of my research on the subject of a "Ministerial Code", a subject which has now been made topical by the recent press release issued by the GSLP/Liberal Alliance, I came across the following:

"Our new government has a particular and historic responsibility: to rebuild confidence in our political system. .. people have lost faith in politics and politicians. It is our duty to restore their trust. It is not enough simply to make a difference ... the key principles [are] freedom, fairness and responsibility ...we must remember that we are not masters but servants. Though the British people have been disappointed in their politicians, they still expect the highest standards of conduct."

The sentiments expressed in this quote are of equal application in Gibraltar. They are sentiments expressed in this blog week after week. It is taken from the Rt Hon David Cameron's Prime Ministerial Foreward to the Ministerial Code of the UK.

The question in Gibraltar is how does it best seek to achieve a result at the forthcoming General Election that is most likely to deliver this objective? The choice will be to block vote or to show disapproval of the political system by breaking that block vote. Voting for individuals irrespective of party allegiance and delivering to party leaders a low personal poll is a very direct expression of discontent. Party leaders cannot have it both ways. If they choose to exert autocratic power they must also take the blame for failures personally.

If you cannot break away from the block vote, what to do? Well that is a choice for you. I will simply leave you with one thought, the GSD have promised open, transparent and good government. They got into power on the back of this promise in 1996 in a background of wholesale breakdown in law and order. Certainly there have been improvements in Gibraltar but have they delivered on systemic changes that will continue to deliver to Gibraltar open, transparent and good government in the future by ALL administrations? I do not believe they have. I believe that that in complete disregard of and in breach of sacred promises to the electorate, there has been a complete and utter failure by the GSD to deliver any such systemic reforms. This is the primary reason why I shall not be block voting for the GSD at the forthcoming election, contrary to how I have voted in the past 4 elections. I will vote for worthy individuals. I urge you to do the same. The alternative is a vote for the GSLP/Liberal Alliance or for the PDP. The PDP have promised systemic changes. The GSLP/Liberal Alliance is now making very interesting promises on this front. The GSLP/Liberal Alliance has historic baggage. It is time for the electorate to discard this consideration and move on. We owe as much to the survival of democracy in Gibraltar. If a GSLP/Liberal Alliance does not deliver on its promises, in 4 years, we can return a GSD Government who will, by then, have learnt the lesson of having ignored and treated the electorate with disdain on this issue.

The Self Determination Delusion

2011-08-21T12:34:00.001+02:00

We are right in the middle of silly season in politics. Many are on holiday and so political activity and interest is at a minimum. It is, however, a good time to reflect on political issues, especially those that become accepted folklore without further scrutiny, analysis and criticism. With scrutiny, analysis and criticism new roads towards ultimate objectives can open up. One illusion that the GSD is responsible for creating is the belief that the 2006 Constitution together with the referendum was an act of self determination. As I have argued frequently, it was not. It was a welcome step on the road to greater self government but no more. My question is, can we use that advance to accelerate our journey to self determination?

Before I answer that question, I shall briefly explain (again and with apologies to those who have read this before) why the 2006 Constitution was not an achievement of what was intended (and some in the GSD advocate) that it would achieve: self determination. First and importantly the Governor and the UK Government retain substantial powers. They are responsible that laws are made for the "... peace, order and good government ..." of Gibraltar. The Governor with the consent of the FCO MInister has powers to make laws on matters that are within its remit. These are external affairs, defence, internal security and certain appointments to public office. The Governor and/or the FCO Minister may refuse to assent to any law passed in Parliament that is

repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution (which read with the fundamental rights chapter and the good governance reservation is a wider power than may, at first sight, seem to be the case); or
repugnant to good government; or
incompatible with international obligations (i.e. EU Laws and treaty obligations).

Lastly but importantly HMG retains full legislative powers, including the power to amend or revoke the Constitution.

It is also a fact that the Treaty of Utrecht, which is now enshrined in the Despatch to the Constitution, circumscribes the ability to achieve independence. It provides that Gibraltar goes to Spain should it cease to be British. Independence is therefore not an option without Spain's acquiescence, which may be an unpalatable thought but a real one. Irrespective of the Treaty of Utrecht, independence without that consent is impossible. Gibraltar's membership of the EU is by reason of its ties with the UK. For Gibraltar to remain in the EU as an independent state would require Spain's approval. If Gibraltar were to leave the EU in order to achieve independence, the imperative for the frontier to remain open with free movement would disappear. Absent an open frontier Gibraltar's ability to remain an economically viable unit is grossly diminished or, in my view, destroyed.

How, in the bleak scenario that I have painted, can I believe that it is possible to advance on the road to self determination? Simple really, we have to navigate a path of good democratic governance within the constitutional bounds, thus making it difficult or impossible for any UK interference in our affairs. It will also help to reduce Spanish influence and argument. As confidence grows in our ability to maturely govern ourselves well, so will the UK's apprehension reduce and more freedom of government will be achieved. In the meantime changes in Spain and Europe will over time open up new avenues that can be pursued by future generations. The progress to fuller self determination will consequently be enhanced and the panorama will widen.

The main brake to out ability to achieve good democratic governance are the very democratic systemic failings that were, intentionally or unintentionally, built into the 2006 Constitution. A Constitution that, in blatant conflict of interest, our politicians conspired to craft to gather power to themselves, in a manner that concentrated it in the office of the Chief MInister. Two effects of this arrogation of power is that it allows external players, in our case Britain and Spain, to assess and so "manage" one person: the Chief Minister. Another is that it undermines the effectiveness of the exercise of that power because it is known to lack democratic credentials beyond a 4 yearly election based on a purposely stilted electoral system.

An overhaul of the parliamentary and electoral system such as will empower Parliament and make it more representative will ensure the strength of the democratic support for arguments marshaled by our politicians. Arguments with wider democratic credibility are far more difficult for external players to defeat. Any attempt to do so will be viewed as an authoritarian act incapable of justification on democratic arguments. This is not the case if the argument is essentially the argument of one individual who could more easily be accused of acting in contravention of the constitutional requirement of good governance, especially if the Rule of Law is not strictly adhered to. In those circumstances interference from external players is more easily justifiable. Also the "management" or "manipulation" of one individual, the Chief Minister in whom power is presently concentrated, is also more feasible, whether by argument, incentive, persuasion or coercion.

In brief, my argument is that advances in self determination are more achievable by democratic means, evolution as opposed to revolution and patiently waiting for developments within the EU. It is not achievable by forcing the pace of time within a negotiation involving Britain and Spain. It is unlikely that Spain will change its attitude to advance our quest. Our advantage over Spain is ingrained within international law, namely that sovereignty was ceded by Spain to Britain under the Treaty of Utrecht. This treaty is respected and recognised by Spain, albeit reluctantly. Spain seeks a return by negotiated agreement, so faced with Britain's well-known promise to us, it has the difficult, if not impossible, task of changing public opinion in Gibraltar. All in all let us be ourselves, let us put our democratic house in order, let us debate maturely on substance (both in Parliament and out of it), let us leave emotion or hatred out of the equation of politics, and let us convince each other, by rational argument, right and wrong paths to follow. This slow road will achieve progress. It is these arguments that convinced me not to join the SDGG at its first and inaugural meeting, to which I was invited, many years ago.

Politics or "Gang" Warfare and Personalisation

2011-08-18T10:48:00.129+02:00

I referred to politics in Gibraltar having been reduced to "gang" warfare in a reply to comments made under my last blog. I was referring to the existence of such a war between the two dominant "gangs" of politicians. I also made reference to the general tendency that exists to personalise issues. There is an interrelationship between both observations. It is important, in my mind, to make a sustained effort to elevate politics out of this mire. It is this consideration that drives, in part, my desire and campaign to reform our electoral and parliamentary systems. I fear and predict that, if nothing is done or nothing intervenes to avoid it happening, this next general election will descend to levels of cross-party sniping and insults that will surpass those reached in the recent past.

At one time I described politics in Gibraltar as "tribal". I am now of the view that this description applies more to diehard party adherents than to politicians themselves. Politicians seem to have formed two "gangs". These "gangs" fight each other. However, they maintain their respective dominance of politics by both "gangs" following vague and unwritten rules. These rules are selfish and not aimed at enhancing democracy or the rights of individuals. One "gang" is called the GSD. The other is called the GSLP/Liberal Alliance. I leave the PDP out of the equation because they are also victims of the two dominant "gangs". I do not exonerate its leader Kieth Azopardi, however. He was one of the architects of the 2006 Constitution that laid the foundations for the "gang" mentality that I suggest dominates politics in Gibraltar.

Let me explain my theory briefly, the Westminster Style of government, which Gibraltar has adopted, has three basic (but non-exclusive) principles. One is that Parliament has sovereign law making powers. Another is that the Executive can only govern under the Rule of Law, which is much ignored in Gibraltar. Yet another is that Parliament has the supreme right and duty to oversee, question and criticise the exercise of power by the Executive arm of government. The Chief Minister and all Ministers should be answerable to Parliament, which should be supreme.

Unfortunately, as I argued in my last blog, this ability of Parliament to oversee the Chief Minister and Ministers has been turned on its head. One reason is that where and when Parliament meets is exclusively in the discretion of the Chief Minister. The only rule that binds him is that under the 2006 Constitution he must hold at least 3 meetings in any year. Without set times for more frequent meetings of Parliament, it is the Chief Minister and so the Executive that retains supremacy rather than Parliament. This fact when it is conjoined with a lack of the separation of powers conspires to undermine Parliament's supremacy and its oversight of the executive arm of government.

The reason I refer above to "certain vague and unwritten rules" between the two dominant parties is because the 2006 Constitution was conceived and given birth to by a Select Committee of the House of Assembly. Both dominating parties or 'gangs" reached agreement on the 2006 Constitution. You will recall that the GSLP/Liberal Alliance endorsed the acceptance of the 2006 Constitution at the referendum. Therefore, intentionally or unintentionally, it does not matter which, both the GSD and the GSLP/Liberal Alliance cooperated to develop a constitutional system that has resulted in the supremacy of Parliament being undermined. Consequently, so has the Rule of Law been undermined. Then effect of these two deficiencies is that once in power the Chief Minister or "gang" leader and his Minister's or "gang" members rule supreme. The other "gang" then has to do its level best to gain that power, whilst the "gang" in power uses all methods to hand to retain that power.

What is odd, in the extreme, is that the public had no participation in crafting the 2006 Constitution, other than it had the right to make representations to the Select Committee. This was not the case for the 1969 Constitution. Prior to that Constitution, a conference of all representative bodies was involved in the process. The absence of direct public representation in the process that led to the 2006 Constitution has meant that only those who had an interest in the outcome, namely the two dominating parties, were involved in the process. An example of a greater conflict of interests would be difficult to find anywhere. The 2006 Constitution in its democratic aspects was crafted by politicians to suit politicians and not democracy.

One can only assume that there was a reason for the GSLP/Liberal Alliance's endorsement of the 2006 Constitution. That reason may be that, together with the stilted electoral system, there was a certainty in the minds of the GSLP/Liberal Alliance that at some stage they would be elected into Government. Once in Government those very same aspects that disadvantaged them in Opposition would be converted to their own advantage, to be used against the party which had previously formed the Government. The latter would then simply have to wait for their own turn to come around again, whilst simultaneously resorting to "gang" warfare tactics to recover its lost power. It is all a very convenient arrangement with little thought given to constituents. The disadvantages of the system fall entirely on the electorate. The electorate would have been the net beneficiary of enhanced democracy, if a better constitutional and electoral system had emerged in 2006. The benefit and advantage to constituents has been ignored by the two dominant parties, perhaps on purpose and perhaps arising from the conflict of interests that led to the the 2006 Constitution being devised as it was.

This "gang" warfare that I have described is a game played at a high level, in blissful disregard of constituents, between the two dominant parties. It is fought by exchanges of press releases and in infrequent (ate the behest of the Chief Minister) meetings of Parliament. These releases and meetings are, on the whole, only understandable by the politicians or "gang" members of both dominating parties. This general lack of understanding in the main arise from general boredom which results in few persons or no one reading these press releases or following debates and other events in Parliament. This boredom comes about because of the irrelevance of what "gang"members are doing and the introversion and length of those press releases and reports of events in Parliament, both being, on the whole, about inter-"gang" conflicts and issues, which interests no one else. Press release and parliamentary interventions also become exchanges of insults and personalised attacks, in part due to the constant desire to remain in government or take over government. None of this behaviour by our politicians or "gang" members advances or enhances democracy, quite the opposite. It is simply a war as between two "gangs" the aim of one is to cling to power the objective of the other is to wrest power from the first.

The electorate for most of the time are ignored and disregarded. People and democracy are forgotten. In the meantime this "gang" warfare continues. The people are only remembered every 4 years just at the time that the election campaign comes around. At this juncture both dominant parties need votes, so both promise the earth whilst ignoring whether these promises are actually good for the commonweal. Responsibility is forgotten and promises of lavish expenditure and electoral gifts are offered in return for votes. Responsibility and real politics fly out of the window. The prize that is sought is power. After the results of the election are announced the "gang" war starts again without regard for constituents. The forgotten people, until the next election, are the voters, despite that democracy is designed for the benefit of precisely the people as a collective and irrespective of what "tribe" or party each may belong to. It may be that in part the present economic crisis in the Western World has been caused by the consequences of overgenerous electoral promises financed by borrowings. Borrowings that now there is difficulty in repaying. This behaviour, in my book, is not what democracy and government are or were ever about, both require responsible conduct and actions from all politicians, whichever party they belong to. Democracy should never be an excuse for bad governance and bad management of public finances.

A Further Democratic Deficiency of Parliament

2011-08-14T11:29:00.010+02:00

Substantial criticism has been made in Llanito World about the democratic deficit that exists in Gibraltar by reason, in the main, of the lack of any separation of powers and the disregard for the Rule of Law. The deficiencies do not stop there, as a review of the Standing Rules and Orders of the Gibraltar Parliament reveal ("Rules"). The bias of the Rules favours the majority party in Parliament (the Government) and the Chief Minister. All the deficiencies highlighted in Llanito World are magnified further, to the detriment of constituents and good governance, because Gibraltar's Parliament is unicameral and not bicameral. In a unicameral system, democratic safeguards need to be more robust. In Gibraltar not only are they not robust they are virtually non-existent.

Essentially the only safeguard that exists is an election every 4 years in which the choice is limited to those who stand for election. Many do not stand for a variety of reasons, many of these reasons are peculiar to a small jurisdiction. This lack of volunteering and participation in the political process in turn reduces the effectiveness of the electoral safeguard available every 4 years. The most voiced opinion that I hear at election after election is to the effect that the choice for the electorate is as between the lesser bad of two bad choices, which can in turn be exploited by any incumbent Chief Minister in Mugabesque (sic) manner. This being the the case, there is something drastically wrong with the system In Gibraltar. The system needs to be changed radically. The radical change must include reforms that will eliminate the fear of repercussions that many have that prevents them participating actively and openly in politics. A brief analysis of some of the Rules further reveal that the democratic deficit is rather deeper than a lack of separation of powers.

One of the fundamentals of Parliamentary democracy is that the Chief Minister is not chosen by direct plebiscite but is chosen by the party or coalition that has a majority in Parliament. It is also true to say that the acts of any Chief Minister fall to be scrutinised by Parliament. It is Parliament alone that can dismiss a Chief Minister, as in order for an electorate to dismiss him/her the electorate has to turn against the incumbent government and elect an opposition party in its place. The power of a Chief Minister is greatly enhanced by this factor. It is further enhanced by his ability to choose the timing of meetings of Parliament.

Under the Rules, it is the Chief Minister, alone, who decides where and when a meeting of Parliament is convened. Admittedly he is forced by the 2006 Constitution to hold at least 3 meetings in any calendar year. The control that his ability to decide the timing of meetings gives the Chief Minister is excessive. Parliament is charged, amongst other duties, to oversee the performance of a government and a Chief Minister. Timing is often of extreme importance in influencing the immediacy and relevance of any issue or incident and delay of embarrassing debates favour the Chief Minister and his Government. It is detrimental to democracy that the Chief Minister can delay a meeting of Parliament when burning issues should be debated close to the occurrence of any subject requiring debate.

This ability to pick the time to hold a meeting of Parliament is a curb on democracy. Even if the Government has an inbuilt majority, parliamentary debate is of the utmost importance in forming public opinion. If the Opposition is prevented from debating issues close to a relevant occurrence its ability to form and influence public opinion is curtailed or eliminated altogether on occasions. In turn this reduces the effect of the only democratic safeguard that exists, namely the decision to oust or not to oust a government at a general election.

Additionally reducing the number of meetings of Parliament to the limited number required by the 2006 Constitution has the effect of concentrating a large amount of business to a limited number of days in a year. Press reports of proceedings become too compressed and detailed. Editorial decisions have to be made to determine the importance of what stories to run with and which to drop. Stories arising from questions or debate about issues or events that are dated take second place and frequently are buried in the morass of issues that have overtaken that event or occurrence. All these factors have the effect of reducing, in numbers of persons, the reach of important stories and reports which come to the ears of the public. The importance and impact and pernicious effect on democracy of the Chief Minister's power to decide on timing should not be underestimated.

Parliament should have a fixed and regular timetable so that the Chief Minister cannot control when important issues are debated in Parliament. Regularity of meetings is also important to ensure currency of debates. The right of the Chief Minister should be limited to recalling Parliament outside those times if he/she considers that to be appropriate. This will mean that important issues can and could be debated at the current, relevant and immediate time, press reports will be easier to follow and more closely connected in time to the issue in debate. Importantly it will force politicians to be what they are, politicians, not administrators.