Have we ever GIVEN States members a pay rise?

The man who thinks he should be paid £75,000 per year

The Constable of St Saviour has lodged a proposition which has been reported in the JEP as 'Don't give us a pay rise'.

Now I find this an exceedingly interesting use of the English language and fundamentally a false statement.

Firstly the use of the word 'give'. I cannot recall ever having 'given' the States members a pay rise, indeed I am with my good friend and business neighbour John Farley, former member of the States of Jersey, in believing that things started to go down hill when States Members started getting paid. If it were left to me they would not be paid at all. As an alternative those who were not of sufficient private means should be awarded income support, albeit without the need to have to look for work. Stuart Syvret served us for many years on this basis before paid States Members, for some reason, that they should be paid was about the only thing that all States members could agree on from the Clothier report but was not a particular priority of the people of Jersey.

The truth of the matter is that our money is stolen from us by hook and by crook and some of it finds its way into the pockets of our representatives, some of this money they even openly admit to taking.

Yes they TAKE it from us. 

They even go to great lengths to show that they have nothing to do with their own pay. They appoint the members of a board which determines how much they should be paid and usually they then decide that they cannot argue with the decisions of the 'independent', yet totally dependent body. That the members are totally dependent on them for a nice little earner on the side and how much the members of the board are paid, of course, does not factor into their deliberations one bit.

Fundamentally it is wrong that members like Senator Bailhache who is on a £240,000 States pension already is given another £40,000 on top. (I mean it is both wrong that he was paid so much as Bailiff, more than the combined salaries of the Lord Chief Justice and the Speaker of the House of Commons combined, and thus qualifies for such a pension and that he takes the £40,000 on top of that). He may of course feel that the drop from £365,000 to just £280,000 per year is a very generous gesture on his part, he does suffer so, from delusions of mediocrity.