An Independent Report?

I've just been reading a presentation by David Kern on Jersey's economy; an "independent report".

What precisely does "independent" mean in the context of this report? It suggests that the removal of immigration controls, for example, are a "must" for "growth", but this is presented as an axiom, not a hypothesis. It seems that it means that it was not a report written to propose a JCC viewpoint, but that does not mean - as it clearly indends to convey - that it is unbiased, or presents a somehow objective viewpoint (what I call the "god's eye fallacy").

I'd love to know what the "operational difficulties" which he mentions in respect of GST are, no details at all given, and from the talk we had from the tax department, it is in fact running on schedule. The only difficulty which came up was Senator Ozouf's autocratic pigheadedness, against the advice of the tax officers, to say that GST had to be on the shelf, not at the till.

He speaks about population growth needed for economic growth, and says that loosening controls will "inevitably trigger hostile populist reaction"; in fact "populist" is a very popular word in his presentation, and invariable carries the meaning "wrong" or "mistaken", or "harmful". The public must, he suggests repeatedly, be educated out of their short-term populist failings towards "robust" and sensible long-term policies. This is an extremely arrogant and patronising idea! The impact on infrastructure (waste, traffic, education and health services, water, electricity) is not considered at all, which seems to me to show how blinkered and one-sided his presentation is. Long term considerations should also look at those; it is equally short-term not to.

He also completely fails to address the impact of budgetary restrictions on core services such as education and health; these are lost amist the general flannel on tightening budgetary controls, which thereby loses sight of the consequences for the general population which may occur.

A neutral assessment of Jersey economy would be useful, and it is here in part, but it does require straining through a sieve to remove all the areas in which rhetoric takes the place of argument, and assumptions are presented as axiomatic rather than debatable. Independent it may be. Unbiased it is not.