Looking at the Deputies - Katy Ringsdore

I have been perusing Katy Ringsdore's manifesto and there is a degree of vagueness on it which I think is unfortunate.

 

Unlike comments I have seen on Stuart Syvret's blog, I have no problem with clips of her enjoying herself on the Clipper race. Unless extremely puritanical, why shouldn't she relax between the hard slog of actual sailing, sometimes in difficult conditions? And I do think the Clipper race is very good for raising publicity for Jersey worldwide, at relatively low cost. The main problem is not that, it is the generalities which are on her manifesto which I don't like. If she is vague on specifics now, what might we expect when she is in the States?

Unlike John Le Fondre, who has come out in all his election material in favour of GST without exemptions, Katy has very little to say on the subject, except that "The introduction of GST means that income support must work efficiently."  Presumably this means she supports GST without exemptions, but it would be nice if she had been up front about this.

Drugs are a big problem in Jersey; we need to have tougher penalties for those that abuse Jersey with drug trafficking.

She does not say what kind of penalties she would like to see. In fact, Jersey has a very tough sentencing regimes for drug smuggling compared with the UK on specific drugs (cocaine is about 3 years in the UK). A lot of sentences over here are for six years or more. Would she like to see this increased?

Jersey's population has to be carefully controlled by setting realistic immigration controls.

Fine, but what kind of immigration controls? It is not specified. This is a very general policy statement, and I would like more specifics. For instance, "realistic" might mean zero, or it could mean 250-500 immigrants per year as some States members have suggested.

It is absolutely essential that senior citizens are given the respect and care that they deserve after years of paying their taxes and contributing to our community. I will do whatever I can to support and enhance their well being.

Matters that effect pensioners - high fuel costs, with JEC tariffs set to rise by 25% - could be mitigated by exemptions from GST. Not all pensioners are eligible for income support because they may own their own home, and some would not like the indignity of State handouts (if they can navigate the 26 page form). Free TV licences would be another step in the right direction. A little more detail would be good rather than just "respect and care", whatever that might mean.

In some cases people do not visit their Doctor due to the high cost, this can lead to serious illnesses developing, which can ultimately lead to a greater cost to the health care system. I would support the less well off to ensure that they can gain care quickly and at a reasonable price.

Who are "the less well off"? How are they to be supported? Does this take account of Bevan's comments when setting up the National Health Service in the UK? Bevan wrote: "Where a patient claimed he could not afford treatment, an investigation would have to be made into his means, with all the personal humiliation and vexation involved. This scarcely provides the relaxed mental condition needed for a quick and full recovery.".

All told, this is a very vague manifesto, both online and in the JEP, in what it does not say. It reads rather like a promotional blurb from a PR company. Specifics are missed out, and instead there are vague general policies which promise nothing detailed at all. If she thinks means testing should be used in cases, she should state that, and give sufficient details of who would qualify. If she thinks immigration should be controlled, she should say how and at what level. If she asks for tougher penalties, she should say what she wants. Having read her manifesto, and the piece in the JEP, I haven't the faintest idea what she really thinks about these matters.

Links:
http://katyringsdore.vpweb.co.uk/Manifesto2008.html

http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/info/penalties.htm