Catching up on the Hansard, it was good to see that Senator Syvret has lost none of his ability at making sharp and well-argued comments. Here is an extract from the Hansard below when the subject under discussion was again GST, and the arguments for and against exemptions. I have heard the argument that exemptions would benefit the rich as well as the poor - the argument Syvret notes - given by a member of management in my own office, and if that was the only argument regarding GST, and there were no inconsistencies in States policy, it would be a good one. But the fact that 20 hours of free nursery care violated precisely this principle, shows that, as far as the States are concerned, it simply doesn't add up. Or as we say in the age of GST, 2+2=4.12!
Last Friday we agreed, very substantially - I supported it - to give all children of nursery age in the Island access to 20 hours of free nursery. Now, was that targeted? Is that going to benefit only the poor or those on middle incomes or are the wealthy, are the better-off going to also benefit from that blanket policy decision? Of course they are. So it is amazing, is it not, to compare and contrast the highly flexible thinking and approach of this Assembly when it comes from one policy decision to another, when it is something as politically high pressure and of such concern? As Senator Vibert's re-election campaign, yes, we can fund massive hours of free nursery care on a non means-tested basis. As I said, it was a decision I supported. But suddenly when we come to questions about G.S.T. it is a different matter. Oh, we cannot possibly just have a simple exemption with G.S.T. because the wealthy, the better-off, might benefit a little bit from it. We could not possibly have somebody in a middle to higher income avoiding the tax of £5 a week or whatever it might be on their food bill. Dear, oh, dear. We cannot possibly have that. I long ago stopped expecting some kind of rational decision making on the part of this Assembly.
Allow inconsistency to come in, become acceptable, and reasonable, and, as Chesterton pointed out, you are on the road to injustice, where people will accept anything, because there is no yardstick to measure against it, no rules, but just ad hoc actions with no rhyme or reason. In another book, he also comments on justice and rules - what we would call good orderliness - and I think that what we see in the States with this kind of inconsistence, is precisely "a nasty mess":
You can be guided by the shrewdness or presence of mind of one ruler, or by the equality and ascertained justice of one rule; but you must have one or the other, or you are not a nation, but a nasty mess. - G.K. Chesterton
Links
http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/hansard/21148-311-8102008.htm#_Toc211231790
Last Friday we agreed, very substantially - I supported it - to give all children of nursery age in the Island access to 20 hours of free nursery. Now, was that targeted? Is that going to benefit only the poor or those on middle incomes or are the wealthy, are the better-off going to also benefit from that blanket policy decision? Of course they are. So it is amazing, is it not, to compare and contrast the highly flexible thinking and approach of this Assembly when it comes from one policy decision to another, when it is something as politically high pressure and of such concern? As Senator Vibert's re-election campaign, yes, we can fund massive hours of free nursery care on a non means-tested basis. As I said, it was a decision I supported. But suddenly when we come to questions about G.S.T. it is a different matter. Oh, we cannot possibly just have a simple exemption with G.S.T. because the wealthy, the better-off, might benefit a little bit from it. We could not possibly have somebody in a middle to higher income avoiding the tax of £5 a week or whatever it might be on their food bill. Dear, oh, dear. We cannot possibly have that. I long ago stopped expecting some kind of rational decision making on the part of this Assembly.
Allow inconsistency to come in, become acceptable, and reasonable, and, as Chesterton pointed out, you are on the road to injustice, where people will accept anything, because there is no yardstick to measure against it, no rules, but just ad hoc actions with no rhyme or reason. In another book, he also comments on justice and rules - what we would call good orderliness - and I think that what we see in the States with this kind of inconsistence, is precisely "a nasty mess":
You can be guided by the shrewdness or presence of mind of one ruler, or by the equality and ascertained justice of one rule; but you must have one or the other, or you are not a nation, but a nasty mess. - G.K. Chesterton
Links
http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/hansard/21148-311-8102008.htm#_Toc211231790
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment