THE Council of Ministers apparently remains confident that its proposals combining increased taxation and spending cuts are capable of balancing the Island’s books and maintaining acceptable public services.

Unfortunately, dissenters ranging from other politicians to the members of pressure groups and business leaders are challenging the prominence of new taxes in ministers’ proposals and the idea that the council has the will to enforce its programme of cuts and savings.

A politician who is relatively new to the House, Deputy Tracey Vallois, has put her head above the parapet to urge Members to reject the 50-50 split between tax and cuts planned by ministers. Instead, she says that there should be savings of £80 million and new taxes amounting to £20 million.

By lodging an amendment to the 2011 Business Plan, Deputy Vallois is ensuring that the ministerial way forward will be subject to debate in the Assembly. Her action will without doubt be welcomed by the many Islanders who resent the notion that the tax burden must increase and believe that more stringent public sector savings are not only possible but also highly desirable.

Meanwhile, Deputy Vallois is no lone voice crying out against generally accepted orthodoxy. She has the backing of the Corporate Services Scrutiny panel, chaired by Senator Sarah Ferguson.

The panel, moreover, has separately expressed contempt for the ministerial plan to cut £50 million over the next three years. It has concluded that the savings proposals are ‘insipid, toothless and unlikely to succeed’ – not least because there is a perceived lack of will to drive them through and no obvious place for the buck to stop when it comes to taking responsibility for the cuts programme.

These political challenges are paralleled by demands from outside the States that echo the claim that the overwhelming emphasis must be on cuts and not extra taxation. A new group, Small Society, which has the support of bodies ranging from Jersey Hospitality to the Institute of Directors, has made its views on these matters abundantly clear. So, too, has the Jersey Chamber of Commerce.

Quite rightly, it will be up to States Members to decide whether the Council of Ministers or the lengthening queue of its critics has the right strategy to cope with our pressing economic difficulties. Their first duty will, of course, be to vote in the way that they believe to be right for Jersey, but in doing so they must pay due attention to the sheer volume of public concern and anger that the prospect of more taxation has occasioned.