From the Summit of the Moral High Ground

I AM writing in response to the letter from John Henwood (JEP 16 October). I find it encouraging that the debate on the role and nature of our government has been initiated by Mr Henwood and I am broadly supportive of his sentiment and views. It is self-evident that if the government seeks to remove a significant proportion of the disposable income from the population then the amount of money available to spend is reduced. Our government has systematically increased the effective rate of taxation from around 20% in 1980 to somewhere in the region of 45% today. It is no surprise, therefore, that our economy is faltering. Increased regulation has hammered much of Jersey’s industry – first making the tourism industry non-viable and lately rendering the finance industry non-competitive as the cost of complying with an ever increasing bureaucratic burden has escalated exponentially. This started in 1998 with the insistence that all corporate entities prepare accounts. Regulation is also mak...

AS a wholehearted supporter of Option A in the recent referendum, it now concerns me that certain supporters of Options A and C, may try to block, delay or divert the States of Jersey from implementing the preference of the people of Jersey in time for the elections which are due to be held in 2014. Gone are the days when all people living in Jersey experienced the same lifestyle and the differences in experience and values were represented in the results of the referendum. But to imply that the values and opinions of the people who supported Option B should not be valid because they differ from the views of some European bureaucrat who may or may not even know where Jersey lies, is regrettable. The notion put about that Option B is not an equitable resolution and would not comply with the demands of the Venice convention is questionable. Under the current system, people living in different parts of the Island vote directly for a varying number of Members from ten in St Mary to 13 in S...

I READ with interest the Treasury Minister’s plan for £23 million of public expenditure savings (JEP, 18 July), however having taken the trouble to review the report of the Fiscal Policy Panel released this month, there are a few issues which the Minister has failed to address. Firstly, the report clearly states that government expenditure is actually due to increase over the next two years. Therefore I would ask the Minister to clarify whether these are actual savings or just an accounting trick in that they are savings on the budgeted expenditure which is due to increase by £30 million pounds, meaning that expenditure will actually only increase by £7 million. Secondly, I am concerned about some of the projections upon which the report, and one would assume decisions, are made. The report calls for prudence, something one would expect from a Treasury function, and yet makes forecasts of gross value added to the Jersey economy at a rate 6% higher than that achieved in 2010. With a str...

I AM concerned that it is taking an inordinate amount of time to find the most imperceptible of cuts in public expenditure. Spending a small fortune on compiling a report to look at how to save money is an example of the perverse Civil Service logic that Yes, Minister! was based on. We now have more people as a percentage, employed by the government, than any communist country during the Soviet era, and those countries collapsed under the burden of their own bureaucracies. As we gradually see the finance industry fade quietly away to less over-regulated jurisdictions with more cost-effective labour, it is time to ask how we are going to pay for the legacy of civil service excess that Senator Ozouf will inherit. The time has come to think big. Simplify the benefits system. Combining pensions and income support into a single weekly payment to each and every person of sufficient residency in Jersey would not only allow us to dispense with the entire Social Security department but would br...

I was moved to write by the headline of 8 March: 400 Health jobs ‘in cash crisis threat’. I had hoped that Senator Ozouf was going to make genuine cuts in public expenditure in response to the ongoing financial crisis, which in truth is caused more by planned increases in government expenditure than anything else. The figure of £600 million planned spending in 2010 consists of £540 million spent in 2009 and £60 million increase in expenditure. The plan to return to £540 million pounds expenditure is therefore not a cut, but merely a continuance of existing spending. It is a start, but Jersey spends beyond its means or indeed needs. The burden must fall on the States Assembly to start looking at which legislation is surplus to requirements and begin to repeal laws. This may lead to a loss of employment, but the government should be looking at whether the work that many civil servants do is necessary. It is clear that many civil service posts exist simply to keep someone off benefits and...