Reduced Starting Salaries
The proposition to reduce the starting salaries of teachers
is thought not to impact on recruitment, and it was considered that the
differential between teachers pay in the UK and in Jersey was larger than
deemed necessary.
I will be reviewing the subject in teachers pay in a later
blog, but in the meantime, we can see a principle established here. Now there
are other professions where there is a differential between pay in the UK and
in Jersey.
In the case of nursing, it is clear that pay is not enough.
Recruitment, even despite Island training, is still far less than required, and
the hospital has to rely on “nursing banks”, bringing in nursing staff on
hugely expensive rates.
But what about the police? A policeman’s pay in Jersey,
starting out, is still in excess of the average in the UK. There does not seem
to be any problem in recruitment. With savings needed from Home Affairs (or
whatever the rebranded department calls itself now), why not consider that? Do we have trouble recruiting police locally?
So can we expect to see the States apply a principle
consistently with recruitment? Or are teachers a soft option?
The Health Charge Voted Down
Following the voting pattern on propositions and amendments
to the Medium Term Financial, Plan, even when there was some opposition to the
plans, the best the opposition could muster was around 17 the voting pattern
seemed firmly embedded at around 29 /17, with the establishment taking 29.
It must have come as a shock when this pattern was not
repeated over the health charge, and the extraordinary result of a tied vote
was obtained. It is interesting, therefore, to see who changed their voting
pattern:
The Senators are all, apart from Sarah Ferguson (who is
always often opposed or abstaining), effectively a “block vote”. There is no
change there, and as all of them are part of the Council of Ministers, there is
no likelihood that there will be a breaking of ranks, especially as “collective
responsibility” locks them together; there will not any “rogue” element, as in the past.
Neither Rob Duhamel, nor any of the moderating influence of
an Ian Le Marquand or Francis Le Gresley who did not always keep to the party
line. Le Gresley, as a former manager of Citizen’s Advice, was uniquely placed
to bring the impact of changes to the Council table, but that connection with
the poorer sections of society has been lost. That disconnect comes because the "mission to explain" the MTFP is purely "them telling us". It is not a mission to listen as well: that skill seems to have been lost.
With regard to the Constables, there has been a pretty solid
split in the vote. Sadie Le Sueur-Rennard St Saviour) and Chris Taylor (St
John) have pretty consistently voted against COM proposals – so much for the
myth of a block vote! As Chris said on BBC Radio Jersey, his parishioners repeatedly call it a "tax" - he has listened to them. It is clear that in general the propaganda about it being a "charge" peddled by the Council of Ministers is not being swallowed by the general public.
With the health charge, they were joined by Juliette
Gallichan (St Mary) and Michael Paddock (St Ouen), two very rural Parishes. Whatever
the reasons for their voting, and hopefully Hansard will clarify that, it has
perhaps more to do with the impact on “Middle Jersey” than the urban poor.
It is interesting that the Town Constable, Simon Crowcroft,
has consistently towed the Council of Ministers line, despite the fact that
probably more of his Parishioners than any others would be impacted by the tax.
Moving to the Deputies, Carolyn Labey voted for other MTFP
proposals but against this one, as did Deputy Richard Rondel, and Deputy Scott Wickenden.
Constable Philip Le Sueur and Deputy Jackie Hilton were excused
attendance on both votes I examined, but I suspect they would have cancelled
each other out.
Which only leaves Deputy Andrew Lewis, who decided to
abstain. A cynic might have suggested that he may have considered a vote
against a Council of Ministers a step too far, as it appears that he would like
to join their ranks, but also with an eye on the electorate, a vote in favour
would have done him no good at the polls. Had the result followed its usual
pattern, his vote would have been insignificant, but as it turns out, it was
the deciding factor.
Nursery Care and Fair Shares
In 2008, I commented on the run up to the elections:
“Mike Vibert brought in some free nursery places, more or
less on a postcode lottery basis, and then having created the problem, and
caused the demise of several worthy private nurseries, tried to secure last
minute funding for extra nursery places just in the run up to elections, which
by any standards, appeared to be a blatant attempt to secure popularity”
That is precisely the problem with free nursery education –
it has was related to school catchment area, with elements of a postcode
lottery, and also on a first come first served basis, totally unrelated to the
means of parents, whether well off or not.
Changes were made after the election so that some element of
fairness should be brought back into the equation by subsidising a proportion
of free nursery education for all, including the private sector. As one Senator
commented at the time.
“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?”
John Le Fondre’s amendment to the MTFP set the cat among the
pigeons, and caused a rethink to have to be made about this, not before time.
He quite rightly pointed out that it was unfair that parents accessing free
nursery education should be treated in a different fashion from those having to use the private sector when it came to
means testing.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment