From Deputy Daniel Wimberley.
LORD preserve us, the so-called Angry Men are back in town with their simplistic and insulting nonsense about the States, States employees, tax and public services.

The detail of what they are reported as saying is nonsensical (JEP, 29 October) but if they want to maintain the indefensible I would be happy to respond in a further letter.

It is the ideology behind what they say that is of greater significance and must be contested. This is the low-tax, low-spend ideology which those in power over the past three decades have implemented, to the delight of the Angry Men and those who think like them. It has done untold damage to our Island and has now brought us to the edge of a fiscal precipice.

Jersey now faces a backlog of essential expenditure of over £500 million. Some of us keep saying this in the States – it rarely, if ever, gets reported. Maybe it does not matter.

We have neglected the maintenance of public assets to the tune of £120 million. We need £150 million for the renewal of our sewerage system. There is a shortfall in housing funding of £75 million. And so it goes on. I wonder which of these big-ticket items the Angry Men think we can do without.

All of these bills are falling due now, in a time of recession. This mismanagement has to be laid at the door of those who have been in power these last years. We could have and should have avoided this situation by spending the necessary money in a sensible way, year by year.

Moving on to this year’s Business Plan, States Members were faced with a lean and mean Business Plan where every department had been forced to make ‘efficiency savings’ – ie cuts. Against this cost-cutting backdrop, members voted to fund some items which they thought were essential against the wishes of ministers. Personally I am proud to have been part of an Assembly which voted this expenditure, and I am sure the Island will be a better place as a result.

The States voted to tackle the sewage stink in Bellozanne Valley. That sewage comes from us all, we are all responsible for the smell, but the smell has then to be endured by a small number of people who live nearby. Are the Angry Men really suggesting that we do not accept our shared responsibility to those people and remove that nuisance?

The States voted to put back the money for the Millennium Town Park. Are the Angry Men really saying that birds, trees, flowers and space for children to play in safely are only for people living in the country?

The States voted for respite care for those looking after severely disabled relatives. Are the Angry Men really saying that we as a society should abandon these people without the support of providing respite and recovery time?

The States voted for extra money for Health, mainly to enable the staff shortages to be tackled. This money was asked for by ministers in a late amendment. Do the Angry Men think that staff shortages at the Hospital are OK?

When you look at the detail you find that the no-public-expenditure ideology vanishes in a puff of smoke. It just makes no sense. If we are to live in a fair, compassionate and enjoyable society then as things are now public spending is essential.

I should add that sometime soon this old public spending model will have to evolve. We will have to find completely new ways of living together in community and providing for our needs in future and getting away from the tax-and-spend model but that is a debate for another day. The Angry Men want to lower our standards of care for each other now.

And I do not believe that this is an ethical stance to take.