Why the silence on reducing States spending?

Saturday 22nd May 2010, 2:59PM BST.

From John Dix.
EARLY last month (JEP, 14 Apr) you were kind enough to publish a letter in which I suggested that States spending could be reduced by the following actions:

• Reduce the cost of running the States by reducing States Members’ salaries to the average salary in the Island. The last figure published by the States in June 2009 was £620 per week.

• Close the final salary pension schemes for States employees and replace them with money purchase schemes.

•  Stop the employment of temporary staff to fill in for States employees working in offices who are absent on sick leave, maternity leave, etc.

• Look seriously at outsourcing within the Island any function currently carried out by States employees which is already provided by the private sector.

• Lose the fear of means testing and stop delivering benefits to everyone.

I have scanned the letters page every day since, but have so far seen no response from any States Member or, indeed, any member of the public, either in support of these ideas, or to put forward a reasoned argument as to why my ideas might not be deliverable.

Is everyone so apathetic that they cannot apply fingers to keyboard to generate a response? We all complain about the quality of our States Members, and I am beginning to understand why.

As an avid listener to the States debates, I find it easy to come to the conclusion that most of them cannot sustain a rational discussion and they just fall back on vacuous rhetoric when challenged.

Will any of the candidates in the forthcoming senatorial election be bold enough to publish a list of the cuts in States expenditure which they will champion if elected, starting with a reduction in their own salary?

If they won’t, please can we have a ‘None of the Above’ box to tick on the ballot paper.
Pied du Câtillon,


  1. 1
    Jay

    Nothing to do with apathy methinks.

    I’ve read quite a few of John Dix’s letters and a lot of them were a waste of my time.

    As for some of his points:

    1) Reducing the States’ Members salary – hmmm yes fantastic idea. This will really attract the greatest minds in Jersey. The salary has to be competitive. Some people who are on highly paid jobs have budgeted their lives accordingly.

    2) A valid point, but is this really wise when the States are already running short of cash? Yes it may save money in the long run but it will cost a fortune to implement.

    3) This will lead to our States departments being even more inefficient than they already are. With unions taking actions now at these spending cuts, think of what they may do when workers are expected to work longer hours under more stressful conditions.

    4) Seriously? Jersey should be proud of our public sector, not looking to privatise it! There are private acadamy schools, should Jersey look to outsource education? Manual work on the roads? Landscaping? Give me a break…

    5) This point is so vague that it is barely worth addressing. “Stop delivering benefits to everyone”. Sounds like the bleat of a rich man to me. Some people cannot live without benefits for a variety of reasons. Many pensioners in Jersey have had income support removed for prescriptions making life even harder for them.

    So basically, the reason why no-one has responded is that the points were not worth responding to.

    Report abuse

  2. 2
    God's Mentor

    Sorry John – I’m with Jay. Your points are so ill informed I didn’t want to encourage you with a response.

    Report abuse

KIT 4 CLUBS

Win a share of £10,000 Win a share of £10,000

2012 is the year of the London Olympics and to celebrate this great event the Jersey Evening Post, in association with sponsors Ogier is giving all sporting clubs a chance to win a share of £10,000.