JDA logo

Newspapers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Letters to the Jersey Evening Post     

 

Homepage

 

About the JDA
Biographies

JDA Policy Statement

Manifesto

 

 Politics

 

To leave blog please click back button on your browser to return to main site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Pay Freeze Can only Make the Recession Worse

From Deputy Geoff Southern. December 9, 2009


I write to contest some of the assertions contained in your paper’s comment column (JEP, 2 December) entitled ‘Teachers’ strike threat’).

 

I could take issue with your statement that ‘the pay freeze…is neither a random act of malice nor a casual whim’. But that, quite correctly, is purely a matter of opinion.

 

However, your follow-up statement that (the freeze) is ‘necessary…to counter the effects of recession’ is false. It gathers not one jot of truth by virtue of repetition.
Further, to suggest that teachers ‘should be more capable of recognising the underlying logic’ (of a freeze) is mere rhetoric, since there is no logic.

The fact is that the vast majority of economists agree that the correct action to counter recession is to spend public money to stimulate the economy while the private sector recovers.

Senator Ozouf has recognised this with his fiscal stimulus package. But he turns a Nelsonian eye to the fact that putting money in the pockets of public sector workers is one of the most direct ways to get the local economy moving.

A pay rise is counter recessionary; a pay freeze makes the recession worse.
Senator Ozouf’s decision to impose an arbitrary and unilateral pay freeze will deepen the recession. It is fundamentally flawed.

I would be grateful if, in future, you could refrain from giving his actions a spurious credibility they do not deserve.

 

A blatant attempt to censor debate?    

December 2, 2009 Deputy Geoff Southern.


I am writing about the latest moves to make the States more ‘efficient’. At first glance this seems a reasonable measure, but closer examination reveals a blatant attempt by some ministers, and others (Senators Ozouf, Perchard and Shenton), who might be expected to know better, to stifle the healthy democratic increase in activity on the part of elected progressive politicians in the States.

No doubt they would refer to these progressive members, new and old, as ‘the opposition’ to the conservative establishment view. By picking on the length and content of speeches, as a populist starting point, these members, now backed by Privileges and Procedures, have established a bridgehead behind which other more noxious limits to backbenchers’ rights are proposed.

There is no doubt that backbenchers have become more active over recent years. The number of propositions lodged by backbenchers has risen to 51 in 2008 from 29 in 2006. The quality and quantity of questions, the basic means of holding ministers to account, continues to rise.

This is a healthy position. We are seeing the development of an effective and organised political dynamic in the assembly.

Equally, there is no doubt that life for ministers is becoming more difficult. Ministers’ propositions have been heavily amended or on occasion defeated. Misleading ministerial statements are challenged. Shoddy and partial reports are given short shrift by members and referred back.

Increasingly high quality, well researched work is brought to the States from the backbenches. Question time has become a real challenge. Again, this is a healthy position.


Some ministers, and one in particular, object to this. They would like to see a return to the old days when a minister just had to turn up on the day to get a proposition through. Intense lobbying behind closed doors had been done to ensure the right result.

The constables could be relied on to vote the ‘right’ way. The ministers’ request to ‘trust me, I have the Island’s best interests at heart’ went unchallenged. It was business as usual.

I use the word ‘business’ deliberately, because this is the business model of politics. It is Jersey plc.

The boss says: ‘I have decided, now go and do it’. The boss will not tolerate any argument, nor it seems do some ministers. The problem is that business is not democratic, whereas government is.

Some ministers do not wish to hear the contrary arguments, no matter how well put, and certainly not at length. Like children, they clap their hands to their ears and stamp their feet in the hope that the argument will go away.

Let’s talk turkey here and name names. This fuss has been brought to a head by the arrival of the new Deputy of St Mary, Daniel Wimberley, an elected member who has a comprehensive knowledge of green issues. He is an undoubted asset to the Chamber.

In the perhaps naive view, shared by many, that decisions should be based on research, fact and evidence, he has attempted to condense his lifelong studies into two speeches on the incinerator and on population.

That he failed to do this in under ten minutes (say) or whatever limits are proposed, should not start us on a set of radical changes.

He will learn, as many members have, that it is largely unproductive to speak for more than 20 minutes. Such skills must be learned; they cannot be imposed.
If we are naming names, then can anyone tell me the relevance of any of the contributions of Senator Terry (the good people of Jersey) Le Main to further the debate or, for that matter, what added value Deputy Ben (in a previous life) Fox contributes. At least his speeches are mercifully short.

Beware, members, if we start censoring the content of speeches, who knows what will be banned. Any attempt to censor will be to the detriment of our democracy.

As to increasing lodging periods for backbenchers’ propositions from the current two weeks, if the minister with his dozens of managers of this and directors of that cannot respond within two weeks, they are not worth their titles. What happened to their efficiency?

This proposal makes rapid response to urgent issues (Woolworths workers, etc) impossible and the backbenchers’ task of representing constituents more difficult. Will it be one rule for us and another for them?

Only last week the Chief Minister, no less, amended his own amendment ‘on the hoof’ in the Chamber. Would that have been allowed for a backbencher? Almost certainly not. Proposals to vet propositions – how, and by whom, one has to ask – are obvious forms of control and censorship.

Further proposals to limit the number of amendments and propositions that a private member can bring are a fundamental attack on members’ ability to represent their constituents.

They will be fiercely opposed by all democratically aware members of the States and many of the voting public.

Article posted on 2nd December, 2009 - 3.00pm
 

 

 

Taxing Vehicles

14th November 2009 - Dave Rotheram

Dear Sir,

Senator Terry le Main's suggestion that something like a cross between the old annual Road Tax and the discredited and unlamented Vehicle Emissions Duty be introduced is as woolly as he himself admits, and not very well knitted either.

The replacement of the road tax with additional fuel duty is as perfectly targeted a green tax as one could imagine. The production of CO2 is inseparably linked to the consumption of petrol. A frugal user of a large car just for journeys where walking or cycling are ill-suited will pollute the island and the world less than an indiscriminate user of a small car making all sorts of unnecessary journeys just because they can afford the petrol. Obviously, an extravagant user of a large car will pollute more than anybody, but they will pay more for it, too, so fair is fair. If it is felt that the current level of fuel duty is neither producing sufficient revenue, nor deterring sufficient traffic, it is a simple matter to hike it up to even more extortionate levels, until the political objectives are achieved.

A simple engine size tax will be multiply unfair. Firstly, the glaring defect of the old VED was that diesel engines pump larger quantities of air more slowly than equivalent petrol engines, for greater fuel efficiency, and so, by the traditional engine size measurement of the air pumped on each revolution, were unfairly rated as larger. Design and tuning differences between different engines of a given nominal capacity will also considerably affect their efficiency and emission levels, so that capacity based taxation will have only a weak relationship to pollution. Basic and “hot” versions of the same model may have the same capacity, but the “hot” version will inevitably burn extra fuel for the extra power. So should a capacity tax be set to overcharge the basic model or undercharge the hot one?

A century or more ago British cars were taxed on a derivative of capacity called RAC horsepower, and it had to be abandoned as unworkable long since. There is no reasonable case for bringing back anything of the sort in the 21st Century.

Yours faithfully
David Rotherham


 

 

 

OLDER LETTERS

 

True Meaning of Figures

August 29th - Dave Rotheram

 

Public Sector Pay Freeze an Insult  

August 28th - Geoff Southern

 

Are the Unions being Misled?

August 17th - Geoff Southern

 

Response to Sarah Ferguson

August 15th - Geoff Southern

 

Open Letter on the 2010 Business Plan

Geoff Southern.