Sunday, 22 May 2011

"Tom Gruchy" on Disorganised Progressives

"Tom Gruchy" submitted this as a comment on another thread, but it is enough of a change of subject to deserve being a thread in its own right, too.

TOM GRUCHY says...
I too seem to be falling into Deputy T. Pitman's spam box and I raised similar sentiments to your well reasoned comment from anonymous.

It's the usual tittle tattle brigade who seem to take up so much space on Pitman's blog and the endless discussion about trolls - but so little discussion of important political and social issues. Not to mention the never ending failure to form a co-ordinated and effective opposition or even a viable alternative government.

The deplorable fact is that there are already more than enough so called "progressives" in the States to run rings around the likes of Le Sueur & Co if only they were prepared to bury their own egos for a few months. Preferably the few months left before Jersey's first ever General Election.

The history of "progressive representation" in Jersey really is a disgrce. The electorate can hardly be blamed - they have returned so called "progressives" to the States since Norman Le Brocq broke the mould - by the bus-load. But always the electorate has been let down.

Just do some counting and consider the likes of Joan Du Feu, Jimmy Johns, Jerry Dorey, Stuart Syvret, Imogen Nichols, Wendy Kinnard, Ted Vibert- but where is their political legacy now? They did not get elected solely through self effort - they were supported by groups of people who raised funds, leafleted, campaigned etc etc without any public recognition or reward. Why did they bother?

Soon, the usual solo prima donnas will be touting for support in the October beauty parade - but how many "progressives" do we need? If we had 27 in the States would they still be fighting amongst themselves and refusing to present agreed policies that have been agreed by the public?

As the "apathetic" public say - what is the point in voting for these people if they fail to deliver. Blame the system, blame the weather, blame whatever you want - but at the end of the day sometime in October - what is the point in voting?


Anonymous said...

I think the entire Jersey system is about to collapse with the weight of the evidence published on VFC, Rico Sorda's blog, and others. There will be too much international interest in the criminal cover up of the HDLG investigation for the facts to remain simmering under the surface. Expect permanent fallout. This story is absolutely huge to anyone reading it off island.

Anonymous said...

Wow. Talking about egos you have to laugh for those of us who know who 'Tom' is! The biggest, most dysfunctional ego in town. I don't know what else he has sent to the Bald Truth blog but I see he has comments up on it. Basically moaning about everyone but himself. Put the big ego aside 'Tom' and practice what you preach.

District No 1 St Helier said...

It will be interesting to read what Deputy Trevor Pitman does decide to write against “Tom Gruchy” (nom de guerre for a Hero of the 1769 “Jersey Revolution” and leader of successful popular revolt). One has to hope that the points raised about the failures of opposition politics will be addressed. My advice is that the Deputy reflects before doing so and desists. He needs to ask himself only one question: “Who is the real enemy?” Is it the right-wing government of Jersey or, to use his words, a “pathetci individual”(sic)?

The blogs are full of personal “title tattle”, that is enjoyable for the participants, but completely irrelevant to the men and women sitting in the Portuguese café in Cheapside. Is it any wonder the entire community has no interest in politics when all it comes down to is personal abuse. This obsession with the personal over the objective issue of policy, is a part of the “Jersey Way” that also infects the so-called “Progressives”.

There needs to be some forthright discussion about the congenital inability of dissenters be they Liberal, Left or Green, to co-operate in any fashion.

Anonymous said...

Well well. Trevor’s blog has been more instructive than I envisaged. My comment on your earlier post about him being a potential recipient of my vote has been well and truly answered.
In its short period of existence, we have already seen one of our paid representatives use his valuable time to:

1) Call members of the ‘establishment’ party ‘dregs’ and ‘numpties’, and pass judgement on many of them he deems ‘aren’t fit to hold office’

2) Call a commentator a ‘clown’ and a ‘buffoon’ who sprouts ‘drivel’

3) Call those who voted against GST exemptions ‘clowns, and complains, despite his own criticisms being of a personal nature, that they are all about ‘personality’

4) Call another contributor to his blog ‘a pathetic individual’, who does nothing but ‘whine and complain’ and promise to publish some ‘comments’ about him

And he has the temerity to accuse another of being ‘incapable of working with others for the common good’

I also mentioned that in the forthcoming election, the public would be looking for individuals with the ability to concentrate, in a mature fashion, on the job we are actually paying them to do, rather than indulge in childish personal vendettas.

It’s interesting how rapidly a blog concerning climate change references has deteriorated into a mudslinging free for all, reminiscent, both in content, and language, of so many others.

Oh and despite the GST exemptions issue having been voted down, Trevor is keen to support bringing it back to the house, despite professing his distaste for ‘countless attempts to overturn a States decision that has been voted on and passed time and time again’.

And there was I worrying that the Deputy’s blog might not be of assistance in helping the left’s non-core supporters decide which way to vote this October.

I’m sorry. I know that you and Trevor are friends, but the way the blog is being run is potentially doing more harm than good in a lot of peoples eyes.

Ugh, It's Him! said...

Anonymous #3:

Sadly, I think you and I, with our interest in policy, are the ones marching out of step. Time and again the Jersey public show that most of them actually do only care about personality politics, and I think Trevor might be making a calculated attempt to reach out to them. He and I banged our heads in vain for five years, trying to interest the JDA in a policy based approach. If we can't even get self-selected politicos to care, what hope the man in the Cheapside cafe, as Nick put it?

Anonymous said...

Has it really taken so little time for the usual 'progressive' internecine infighting to become manifest on Trevor's new site ? I may be wrong, but isn't 'Tom Gruchy', the target of Trevor's rising ire, one of the principals behind 'Team Voice', whose contributions he also appears to court under his comments section ?

What a shame that 'policy' has to take a back seat to sensationalism in attracting readers and contributions to the blog.

Bearing in mind his own 'colourful' contributions thus far, few of which appear to relate to any discernible 'policy', is it really not obvious to those concerned why the 'establishment' party continue to prosper at the expense of the progressives ?

Trevor undoubtedly does some sterling work at constituent level, however the airing of the progressives dirty laundry in such a public manner will continue to detract from his, and others, ability to widen their mandate, and accordingly, the positive attributes they could bring to enhance the way we are governed. I don’t see the Ozoufs or Macleans or Le Marquands calling politicians who do not agree with their policies childish names on blogs, or indulging in smearing other members, or their supporters. Does Trevor not realise that people take notice of things like this ?

Of course, I'm expect to be dismissed as a troll, or Jon the bogey man, or a right wing plant or some other device that people use to distract from the realisation that things aren't working in their present format.

Ugh, It's Him! said...

Anonymous #4:

No, I don't think you are a troll. Those who have been on the inide are hacked off with the state of Jersey non-establishment politics, too. Thus "Tom's" piece, and my decision to run it and all the comments.

Anonymous said...

Pitmans blog is excellent in my humble opinion. I must say I like to see some humour with the serious message as it takes blogs out of the dry and regularly dull standard of most. Yes I am anonymous too but I don't go on to blogs to hide behind this an attack others for no apparent reason.

As for Nick Le Cornu doing his best to promote himself as District No 1 St. Helier for some reason I do wonder why. I think that sadly once his true Marxist policies are aired for Nick it is always likely to be finito. He is interesting at times but just isn't credible in the modern era when you get down to it. This isn't 1776 shame though that may be. Attacking Syvret and the JDA as he has done so many times in the past I do also have to wonder where he is coming from here.

GST and getting it taken off basic healthy food is absolute common sense. It should have been voted through last time when Deputy S Pitman brought it. Stopped if memory serves by people who could well be considered clowns and a lot worse. Here I rather think your other poster gives away his true political colours hiding under a veneer of moderation.

Nick Le Cornu said...

I think we have some consensus here and a degree of sanity amongst the commentators. It should be pointed out to Deputy Pitman the enemy is in front, not behind. That is where he performs well. All else is a distraction.

Anonymous said...

I'm still not sure whether responding to Anonymous #5's comment is the right thing to do, as it could be seen as perpetuating the infighting which I criticised in my previous post, however here goes.

Your opinion has as much relevance as mine, so I wouldn't condemn it simply on the grounds that it differs from my own, otherwise we might as well just exchange e-mails saying ‘you’re wrong’, ‘no, you’re wrong’ ad infinitum at each other for all the good it does. I have tried to explain why my opinion is at it is, and you have done the same.

I think our interpretation of 'humour' differs somewhat, however if people being insulted amuses you, that’s your prerogative. If you notice in the previous comments, it is Trevor's lack of concentration on policies, and distraction with other issues, rather than Trevor the person I am criticising. This applies equally to this comment countering your own opinion, aspects of which I don’t agree with. The only thing I know about you is the opinion you have expressed on this blog, so please forgive me if you interpret giving a counter opinion as an ‘attack for no apparent reason’.

Your opinion on Nick epitomises the destructive infighting I mentioned in my earlier comment, and I therefore have no wish to become involved in it, as I can’t imagine anything constructive coming out of it. Suffice to say none of the parties you mention are playing any significant part in the good governance of this island. (Yes I know Geoff is still there, but, given the success to failure rate of his propositions, he is at best a fringe player, who, lest we forget, was overwhelmingly rejected by the island at the last senatorial election). The paucity of progressive representation is demonstrative of the affect that childish public spats have upon voter perceptions. If progressives aren’t mature enough to get on with each other, how can they be trusted to work effectively with others in government ?

It’s interesting that you initially praise GST as common sense in your last paragraph, even if you also support it’s removal from healthy foods. (Although I admit I may have misinterpreted your comments). Removing the tax from healthy food would of course appear to be a sensible thing to do, however the cost of administering these exemptions, and the fact that someone somewhere has to pay for the shortfall in revenue , is what has lead to the States rejecting previous propositions. Your interpretation of numerous democratic votes as being the behaviour of clowns (‘and worse’, although what clowns do to be ‘worse clowns’ I don’t know, maybe not being funny ?) is really beyond me.

As to my ‘political colours’, what difference does my own political persuasion make to my criticism’s of Trevor’s running of his website ? Are you implying that only criticism from those whose political views match your own have any relevance, or that only those who unquestioningly support any politician should have the right to comment on their actions ? I wasn’t aware that suppression of political views or the prohibition of policy criticism was a cornerstone of the socialist manifesto, but that may be another failing attributable to my ‘political colours’ ?

I’m sorry if you view my expression of opinions in a constructive, non-confrontational manner as a ‘veneer of moderation’, however I’m sure you support my democratic right to suggest how things might be improved ?

Anonymous said...

I think Nick is right to a degree. "Tom" Gruchy is very much a destructive and negative individual and I certainly can understand someone like Trevor saying enough is enough. But like Nick says in this instance Trevor is doing a great job as things are. We can't afford those few excellent politicians like him to get distracted. Somebody really ought to have a word with "Tom" though.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry but I've run out of patience. What more apt a demonstration could there be as to why the intransigence inherent in progressive politics has lead to such failure, than Trevor's latest blog, where he demonstrates that he can't (or won't) distinguish between attacking him, and attempting to point out an alternative approach to that which has historically let down the progressive cause in the eyes of voters.

According to him, his blog 'appears to increasingly annoy a number of Establishment supporters who now go on the blogs pretending to be ‘floating voters’ attacking me!)'

Aside from his ridiculous presumption as to my political allegiance, about which he has no knowledge, if that's a demonstration of the extent of his willingness to engage with any criticism, I guess it sends a pretty hard-line message to anybody considering voting for Trevor at the next election. You either support him 100%, irrespective of his approach, or you are branded some sort of establishment spy sent on a covert mission to attack him in cyberspace. Grow up for God’s sake. And good luck with attracting any new support mate if you feel it necessary to (mis)represent sensible suggestions as to how you could refine your approach as an attack upon your person. But I guess the ‘success’ of the progressive movement in Jersey is an apt demonstration of the fact that you know best.

David, the best of luck with your blog. I now have a much greater appreciation of the difficulties you have faced in the past. I’m sorry I wasted my time trying, politely, to suggests things that might help, but I guess there are none so helpless as those who won’t help themselves.

Ugh, It's Him! said...

Tom Gruchy seems to be unpopular with my readers, so I shall not dishonestly suppress the criticism. However, even if he never manages to punch his full weight, I still respect him for his wisdom and his tenacity, and I do not personally endorse the attacks to any greater extent than conceding that they are fit for publication.

Anonymous said...

A bit egotistical aren't we Anonymous? Who says Pitman is writing about you?

Anonymous said...

'A bit egotistical aren't we Anonymous? Who says Pitman is writing about you?'

Just keep ignoring the message and concentrate your ire upon the messenger. It's very kind of you to keep perpetuating the mistakes I have tried to highlight.

Ugh, It's Him! said...

QED: I thought we might get a good discussion of the problem of the fragmented counter-establishment, and it turns into an internal slanging match, then fizzles out. We need to do much better come election time.

Anonymous said...

Hi David,

Any observations on the schools milk petition ?


Ugh, It's Him! said...

Anonymous #11:

In the first place, I believe school milk is a good thing, but, in today's affluent and overfed society, a much less important good thing than it was at the time of its original introduction. I think they should have kept it, but asked parents to chip in towards the cost, but that option has never been on the table.
Regarding the petition; it is the kind of stunt that stops me regretting baling out of the JDA, and the undignified squabble between Geoff and Ted about whose petition it is diminishes both men. It is the 2,000 signatories' petition, if it is anybody's, and the front men owe it to the 2,000 to get on with presenting it, not drag it into their own quarrel.