Ponzi Economics: Immigration and Infrastructure

"Jersey States has revealed a new population policy - to limit immigration to 325 people a year. The temporary law would give the government more control over the number of migrants coming to the island. Assistant Chief Minister, Senator Paul Routier, said: "We are controlling the number of licences to non-locals. But it is important to keep a level of immigration, so that we have a workforce that can support an ageing population." (1)
 
"I have no choice but to provide extra capacity in primary schools in 18 months to two years." The Education department had hoped to build a new school, but could not find a suitable site and so decided to spend £10m on extending six primary schools. Projected figures show a steady rise in the number of children expected to come into education in the next few years. Births in Jersey have risen from 944 in 2006 to 1125 births in 2012." (2)
 
There seems to be an assumption that one can "grow" the population by immigration to support an ageing population, and that this can be wholly divorced from considerations of infrastructure. Projected figures show increased numbers of children - who presumably will be part of this diminishing workforce - are putting such pressure on the education system that primary schools need to be expanded.
 
And that is quite apart from increased demands on power, water, sewage treatment, hospitals, etc etc, all of which need increased, and sometimes very costly capacity.
 
It is an illusion to assume that adopting a strategy of immigration to curb problems over an ageing population. Assuming the bulk of the immigration is within the working age span, that will increase the total in that bracket and mitigate the problem of support for the retired people. But in time, those new immigrants will increase the retired population, because they themselves age. But now there are more within that age bracket to get older and retire, and the only solution is more immigration.
 
It's rather like taking out loans to replay loans plus interest, and the interest cumulating, so that higher and higher loans are needed. The more the size of the loan increases, the greater the interest to pay, and the greater value that another loan would need to be to repay it.
 
And just as you cannot evade repayment of a loan by endless borrowing, so too the ageing population cannot be solved by endless immigration. Since immigrants age too, all this can do is put off the evil hour for future generations. To continue postponing the crunch you have to keep increasing the dose of immigration. This is Ponzi scheme economics.
 
Dr Andrew Geddes has also noted this in his observation on the UK:
 
"The argument in support of newcomers is beguilingly appealing. The effects of an ageing population on the labour market and welfare state require immigration because immigrants can fill labour market gaps and sustain pensions and health care. The UK population of state pensionable age is projected to increase from 10.8 million in 2000 to 11.9 million in 2011 and to peak at around 16 million in 2040."
 
"But this replacement migration argument has a flaw: immigrants require replacements given that they settle down, have children and get old too. More and more immigration is then needed." (3)
 
And even the UK Home Office's report International Migration and the United Kingdom: Patterns and Trends (2001) could see the flaw:
 
"The impact of immigration in mitigating population ageing is widely acknowledged to be small because immigrants also age. For a substantial effect, net inflows of migrants would not only need to occur on an annual basis, but would have to rise continuously. Despite these and other findings, debate about the link between changing demography and a migration 'fix' refuses to go away."(6)
 
To solve the problem today by immigration is to burden future generations with the real cost. a point made by Leith van Onselen commenting on the same situation in Australia:
 
"Immigration only helps to delay population ageing by pushing the problem onto future generations (whilst creating potential problems in other areas). Indeed, when the current batch of migrants inevitably grow old and retire, Australia will find itself in exactly the same position, with policy makers once again seeking to kick-the-can down the road via more immigration." (4)
 
"Simply importing more workers to cover the retirement of the Baby Boomers only delays the ageing problem, pushing the problem onto future generations. Further, what will be the solution in 30 years time when current migrants grow old, retire and need taxpayer support? More immigration and an even larger Australia?" (5)
 
And Leith also notes the infrastructure problem which is so often simply bracketed off any discussion as somehow magically solvable:
 
"A big negative of high rates of population growth is that it places increasing pressure on the pre-existing (already strained) stock of infrastructure and housing, reducing productivity and living standards unless costly new investments are made. Indeed, controversial investments like desalination plants would arguably not have been required absent population growth." (5)
 
Conclusions:
 
If we follow the adoption of a migration strategy to mitigate ageing population, then at 2050 we would be left with exactly the same challenge now of adjusting to an ageing society, but with a vastly greater population. In the long term it is a Ponzi scheme, paying dividends for the present by burdening the future with the real task of tackling the problem.
 
The demand on infrastructure cannot simply be adjusted by throwing more resources at the problem. There is a limited water supply within the Island. The capacity from France can be increased, but the ability to deploy local power in an emergency will grow steadily more problematic. There will be increased pressure of traffic on the roads, more children needing larger schools, more hospital resources, more social housing.
 
What are urgently needed are calculations of the effect of each increase in 1,000 of the population on the Island's resources, and no such calculation and projections have been made. What is certain is that uncontrolled immigration is unsustainable, and immigration is not a "silver bullet", an easy panacea for solving the economic problems of an ageing society.
 
Links
(1)   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/europe/jersey/
(2)   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-24615602
(3)   http://fpc.org.uk/articles/178
(4)   http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/11/demographics-australias-irrevocable-growth-challenge/
(5)   http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/09/does-australias-prosperity-depend-on-immigration/
(6)   http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs23.pdf

Signs of the Times

And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, "Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation." (Mark 8:12)

Paul Routier is bring a proposition to the States to ensure that any propositions for debate must be signed by 7 other members, and true to his proposition, he has the endorsement of 7 members for this proposition.

To request the Privileges and Procedures Committee to bring forward an amendment to Standing Orders to require a proposition for debate lodged by a member of the States in his or her own right to be endorsed and countersigned by 7 other members.
 
The reasons for this are given as "a number of propositions which have been lodged for debate which have either been withdrawn on the day of debate and even during debates for various reasons. Some have been because of a lack of information, some have been because there has not been enough understanding of the existing legislation and services provided by various departments."

No examples are actually given of this, which is why Geoff Southern's amendment calls for equal parity with the Council of Ministers:

to request the Privileges and Procedures Committee to bring forward an amendment to Standing Orders to require a proposition for debate lodged by a Minister to be endorsed and countersigned by 7 Ministers or Assistant Ministers

His reason is that the fault does not just lie with backbenchers, but with the Ministers as well:

During my time in the States, I have witnessed a number of propositions which have been lodged for debate by Ministers, only to be withdrawn subsequently for various reasons. When this occurs, there is a real sense of frustration amongst conscientious backbenchers regarding the waste of members' time in preparation for the debate.

Unlike Deputy Routier, who may give some examples in his speech on the matter but has failed to do so for his proposition, Deputy Southern gives a number of examples of this habit with Ministers, as for example:

More recently, we have had the announcement of a new policy on subsidy for the fee-paying sector from the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture. This occupied considerable amounts of members' time and attention, only to be withdrawn following objections from 3 or 4 Ministers. In the Budget debate, members were also presented with the prospect of a Minister for Treasury and Resources bringing forward a proposal that he did not personally support.

The lack of examples in Deputy Routier's proposition suggests it is more of a blocking tactic, designed not to stop propositions being made and then withdrawn, but to stop propositions being made that would most assuredly not be withdrawn.

But if he is sincere in his proposition, then he would be expected to support Geoff Southern's proposition, otherwise Ministers would be exempt from the same kind of time wasting which he complains of, and which Deputy Southern provides ample evidence. Can it be right that backbenchers can waste time this way, but Ministers are somehow immune from the same rules that apply to ordinary States members?

That the proposition is endorsed by Privileges and Procedures comes as no surprise, as their recent ideas about a required for Senators to have signatures on their election forms from each of the twelve Parishes, and a deposit of £500 for all candidates, clearly will exclude both the poorer members of Jersey, and anyone who has not got friends in every Parish. Those propositions may be made with the best of intentions, but they evidently come from the ranks of the Privileged - the Committee is well named, as they effectively exclude candidates on the basis of wealth and the width of their social network across Jersey parishes.

I myself have relatives in St Mary and St John, friends in St John, St Martin, St Clement, St Mary and St Ouen, but I don't know anyone that well in Grouville or Trinity. But suppose I had many people willing to support me in all the Parishes except St Mary. On that basis alone, I could not be endorsed as a Senatorial candidate, and would effectively be blocked by the Parish with the smallest population. Can this be right? Surely not? I think that Privileges and Procedures would do well to watch the recent series by Michael Sandel on justice, because they seem unable to consider thought experiments to explore the justice of their position, and he provides plenty.

Deputy Trevor Pitman wants an even stronger amendment:

to request the Privileges and Procedures Committee to bring forward an amendment to Standing Orders to require a proposition for debate lodged by the Chief Minister or another Minister to be endorsed and countersigned by all other 9 members of the Council of Ministers.".

In other words, he is calling for "collective responsibility" to  actually be in place, so that the Council of Ministers not only support each others propositions, there has to be unanimous consent. That seems to be to be going rather too far. It means that one dissenting Minister could block the vote of all the others, which might be a matter of personal conscience for them, or otherwise put their signature on something they did not actually endorse, just because of the need to do so, but speak up against it in debate. Suppose it was something to do with abortion, with which Catholic members might feel strongly, but the majority of the Council of Ministers were in favour of?

But this, and Deputy Southern's proposition, do raise the question of how collective responsibility actually functions within the Council of Ministers. The recent resignation of Sean Power illustrates the slippery nature of what is going on. He noted that:

"At a meeting to-day, the Council of Ministers has expressed a view that I should resign as Housing Minister and I now do so."

Quite how does the Council of Ministers "express a view", and how is that decided upon? Is there any dissent, and how is that dealt with - in other words, are we getting a "majority view" that is papering over any disagreements? Is a view possible if Ministers are absent or ill? The endorsement of propositions by at least some Ministers and Assistant Ministers in Geoff Southern's proposition has more to recommend it than Trevor Pitmans. And some more transparency in the sometimes murky decision making processes of the Council of Ministers would be welcome.

Privileges and Procedures bring one of their arguments that serious consideration may not be given to propositions at the moment:

A member may be willing to second a proposition simply because they consider that the proposer should have the right to have their proposition debated. Such members may not be willing, however, to endorse the proposition in the manner proposed by Senator Routier.

What do they mean by this strange idea? That somehow by signing a proposition in this way will lead to support for the proposition itself, and those who do that can be taken as agreeing with the substance of the proposition? Or is this a case of guilt by association, that support can be taken as endorsing a policy, and this used by other States members for propaganda purposes? Even if it is not intended as such, again Privileges seems unable to see the unintended consequences that would result. But Paul le Claire, with his amendment, is well aware of this:

After the words "other members" insert the words "although the names of the members who endorse and countersign the proposition shall not be disclosed or published by the Greffier of the States unless he or she is requested to do so by the proposer".

He comments that:

I am suggesting this amendment as, if this proposition is passed, members will invariably be subjected to the usual derogatory comments that we see in the Chamber from the members who like to ridicule those that have not voted in support of the Council of Ministers. It occurs on a regular basis and the usual phrase we hear is "the usual suspects". This type of comment will invariably dissuade members from signing other politicians' proposals and will eventually further erode the rights of backbenchers.

Deputy Philip Rondel, meanwhile, has a very simple amendment:

For the number "7" substitute the number "2".

He notes that:

I must say there may be merit in increasing the number of signatures on a proposition, but the system proposed by Senator Routier and others is farcical and is designed to prevent a member from doing what they believe is right for the people they represent. In parishes with only 2 elected members, it may be more difficult than the Senator thinks to look at bringing members from outside the parish to support an issue.

Deputy Rondel notes that Senators do not take much of an interest in Parish affairs, but a proposition may be brought which is of importance to the Parish, but not necessarily Islandwide in scope, and it may be difficult to get endorsement of Senators:

Aside from Senator Le Main attending a meeting in St. John for Field 605, I do not recall seeing any Senator attending a Parish Meeting or Assembly in the last 10 years, other than at election hustings and polling days when they want your vote; but I would stand corrected if individual members could furnish me with the relevant dates they did attend such meetings.

and as Deputy Rondel notes - again giving examples so lacking in the original proposition:

A member may wish to do any number of things within his/her Parish or district to benefit those they represent - for instance to put a reduced speed limit in the parish, as I did successfully in the late 1990s. Such matters may be of no interest to other elected members, so they would disqualify themselves from signing the proposition.

What this means, of course, is that where Parish Matters are concerned, any collection of signatures may be done strategically, on the basis of "you support my proposition, and I'll support yours" in order to get the requisite numbers, which rather defeats the argument that at present "a member may be willing to second a proposition simply because they consider that the proposer should have the right to have their proposition debated".

Instead, strategic game play may mean that 7 members may be willing to support a proposition, not necessarily because they consider the proposer has a right to have the proposition debated, but because they want support when it is their turn. Quite how this will "strengthen those propositions" (PPC) by producing a culture in which back-scratching self-interest becomes a dominant strategy is unclear. Perhaps I'm old fashioned in my views, but I would not consider that an improvement!

The Ministerial Lobotomy

Deputy Sean Power was on BBC Radio Jersey this morning making a couple of points about Harbours and Airports. These were put with admirable brevity, and were as follows:

a) the Harbours department has around 70 staff, and it needs to be reviewed to see if it is overstaffed (which he suspects).

b) as trading committees, the airport and harbour both run at a loss, and if they can't manage to make a profit as public trading companies, perhaps they should be taken over by the private sector.

Senator Paul Routier was the Assistant Minister who was answering these questions. He did pick up on one error, the harbour actually made a small profit last year. But most of his lengthy replies said very little - "doing business with companies of good standing", "looking at different ways on doing things", "commercial opportunities", "consulting with commercial groups"  etc etc, or was only marginally relevant - Condor have been doing well - forgetting that Condor is a private company.

On hearing this waffle, in which poor Chris Stone tried very hard to get answers to basic questions - such as giving a simple example of "different ways" - my son asked why they didn't get a politician who knew the subject. I told him that Paul Routier was the Minister who was in charge of looking after Harbours and Airports, which prompted the comment: "politicians obviously forget to read the small print which says they must have a lobotomy on becoming ministers".  Politically aware and intelligent children can sometimes indulge in very plain speaking!

And yet there are very good points to be made for not taking the harbours and airport wholly into the private sector. We are on a small Island, and both for tourism and the locals, there are only two ways on and off the rock. A private company could push up prices to make a profit and make travel uneconomical for tourism, or, as happens with the private ferries and planes, provide cheaper fares to the Island and expensive ones for locals (who have little in the way of choice). Do we want this scenario extended to harbours and airports, and possibly also a more commercial squeeze on freight, raising the cost of living even higher? Deputy Power didn't consider these matters, and Senator Routier didn't take them up at all.

Unlike the U.K., where there are alternative airports and Harbours, and even the Channel Tunnel, we have only one airport and one harbour, and there is, I believe, a case for social need, a public service element, even if it may mean that the airport and harbour run at a loss. Otherwise, the poorest members of society will be penalised, and become virtual prisoners upon the Island.

However, as far as overstaffing is concerned, we don't have an organizational chart, so there is little that can be seen as to how well staffed the department is, which is something which missed by Deputy Sean Power. Perhaps he can press for States departments to be run according to rudimentary principles of good business organisation, and draw up one. Only then can we see if there are savings to be made.

Also not mentioned is the ludicrous paper trail in which Harbours, as a trading entity, lease out for rent the Maritime Museum site to Jersey Heritage; they argue that this is (1) a reduced rent and (2) that they could rent it out more profitably at market value. But Jersey Heritage is a quango which is financed by the States, leading to the absurd situation whereby balancing the books leads to money chasing round from the States to the States.

Why this happens is because far from "joined up government", each department is seen as its own little fiefdom, protecting its own rights and privileges and budgets jealously against others. It is this segregated Empire building mentality which needs to be changed, and Ministerial government simply combined separate departments under one Minister, with little or no attempt to integrate them; it is the political version of papering over cracks.

Sir Humphrey: We want all responsibilities, Minister, if they mean extra staff and bigger budgets. It's the breadth of our responsibilities that makes us important, makes YOU important, Minister. When you see vast buildings, huge staff and massive budgets, what do you conclude?

Jim Hacker: Bureaucracy?

No, Minister, you conclude that at the summit there are men of great stature and dignity who hold the world in their hands and tread the earth like princes.

Jim Hacker: Yes, I see.

Sir Humphrey: So each new responsibility must be seized eagerly and each old one guarded jealously.

A Hall of Shame

I am extremely disappointed in the failure of the exemption on domestic energy, especially as I noted one Assistant Minister voted against the exemption, despite having mentioned in conversation to me personally that he could see a case for that, and might be in favour, because with just one supply of electricity, there would be no complications, or manpower considerations.

Will the tax thresholds - as last time - be adjusted to allow for the massive increase in JEC costs this year, or are the measures proposed to adjust tax thresholds last year just a "one off" which has been mostly wiped out by the staggering rise in the price of electricity? That was always the
weakness of the position advocated by John Le Fondre, that rising costs could wipe out any short term amelioration given by this strategy.

Here are a few more disappointing politicians:

Paul Routier:
JEP 31.03.08 record of election pledge: vote for exemptions
Actual result: voted against

Len Norman, Constable of St Clement
JEP 31.03.08 record of election pledge: vote for exemptions
Actual result: voted against

Well done to newcomer Ian Le Marquand for keeping his promise, despite being on the Council of Ministers; also to newcomer Deputies Higgins, Green, Rondel, Tadier, Wimberley and Dupre.

Whether for or against GST exemptions, I respect those with other convictions such as Sean Power or Ian Gorst.

What is less worthy of respect are election promises made and clearly broken - or in the case of Alan Maclean - as the JEP noted - a vaguely conditional form of words which tried to please everyone, but promised nothing in detail. He wins the Jim Hacker Award!

Recent Funnies from Hansard

Just been reading Senator Paul Routier's replies on various subjects, when nominated for Education, and I'm not surprised he didn't get the post. It is stuffed full of the kind of verbiage that Jim Hacker would have made in Yes Minister. Here, for your delight, are a few snippets:

Senator P.F. Routier on Fort Regent:

Yes, I am very aware that Fort Regent's swimming pool is degrading.  I can recall going to the opening of the pool, well, the day before it opened was my wedding day and I recall having a chat with my best man in the pool and discussing things with him about the wedding.  Sorry, I am digressing.  But certainly we need to find a solution for the pool.  The reason we closed it: it was degrading and degrading and degrading.  I recognise the regeneration of Fort Regent is a high priority and obviously the pool will be part of that.

Senator P.F. Routier on Culture

When it was decided to include Education and Culture and Sport and Culture together, there was a big debate about that, whether that was the appropriate thing to do.  It was recognised that we needed to find a home for it.  But, as I said in my speech, I believe that culture is within us, it is here.  The whole Island is culture.

Senator P.F. Routier on Sport:

I always regret the way there has been a decline in the physical activity within schools.  It is something that I believe that encourages ... I am a team player.  I believe team sports are very good.  I believe competition is very good and I think it creates a person ... it gives them the fight to get on in life, to be able to take part in sport.  So, as far as I am concerned, I believe that we should try and get sport back into the curriculum. 

Weekend Musings

The existence of social evils, that is to say, of social conditions under which many men are suffering, can be comparatively well established. Those who suffer can judge for themselves, and the others can hardly deny that they would not like to change places

- Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies


http://www.thisisjersey.com/2008/08/16/poverty-states-call-on-charity/

A CHARITY that helps Islanders in urgent need has been receiving letters from States departments asking for help for children and families whose needs cannot be met through the new income support system. Colin Taylor, of the William and Helena Taylor Trust, says that many people are falling through the benefits net. He regularly receives official letters from childcare officers, social workers and youth workers who work for the Heath and Social Services department asking for help for families with nowhere else to turn. He also receives letters from school heads requesting help for children. 'The people making these requests are professionals in their fields and must feel that there is nowhere in the system for them to go to help their clients. That is a situation that needs to be addressed,' he said.

The article in the JEP went on to say that - a year ago - Senator Paul Routier had sat down with Colin Taylor, and concluded that there was not a lot that could be done within the existing Income Support law, that most of the cases who were coming to Mr Taylor could not in fact be helped through the States system.

It strikes me that if you are a politician whose responsibility this is - like Senator Routier - and the law is not sufficient, then it is your duty to amend to law in order to prevent all the avoidable suffering and misery that this situation occurs. One year down the line, and it seems that nothing much has been done, and by all accounts the new income support scheme is worse than the old patchwork quilt. To say when people are falling through the cracks that "this is the law" sounds like the pitiless motto of Inspector Javert in Victor Hugo's Les Miserable:

Jean Valjean: You never temper justice with mercy?
Inspector Javert: No, we might as well understand each other, Monsieur Madeliene. I administer the law - good, bad, or indifferent - it's no business of mine, but the law to the letter!

Now that might be excusable for a civil servant, who after all, has to apply existing laws. I see no grounds for the law being used as an excuse to hide behind by Senator Routier. It is politicians who are responsible for policy, and they are responsible for reforming an existing law if it is not working as well as it might. The income support law was a reform on a grand scale, and it would be surprising if there were not problems arising which need to be addressed. As Popper notes:

Bearing in mind the general principle of learning from mistakes, and the function of experiments in science, social reforms can be viewed as experiments and sensible politicians will monitor the results and look out for unexpected complications, unintended consequences...

Why has Paul Routier done so little? Does he think that this is acceptable?

It often seems to me that many of our politicians need a grounding in the work of the philosopher John Rawls. In his "Theory of Justice", Rawls posed the following

no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance

According to this, a just society is the one you would construct if you did not know where you fitted into the society - rich or poor - but had to decide how to organise the society based on this "veil of ignorance". As Rawls argues, if you do not know how you will end up in your own conceived society, you are not likely to privilege any one class of people, but rather develop a scheme of justice that treats all fairly. In particular, Rawls argues that the poorest members of society will be maximised, because you do not know if you will end up there.

That is a rational basis for improving our society when people fall through the cracks in the income support scheme - there is also the way of empathy, of considering the case of other people, and putting yourselves in their shoes, a task which many politicians seem singularly ill-equipped, with a few notable exceptions. It is likely that the reason why many in the States found Senator Syvret's speech at Christmas so disturbing was that it was clearly heartfelt, and called upon them to feel enough to make an emphatic response as well.

Simon Baron-Cohen, one of the psychologists who made the breakthrough about "theory of mind" in autism, is convinced that lack of empathy is at the root of many political problems, and in how they are shaped. This is his "dangerous idea" from the Edge Foundation "big question" of 2006:

Imagine a political system based not on legal rules (systemizing) but on empathy. Would this make the world a safer place?

The UK Parliament, US Congress, Israeli Knesset, French National Assembly, Italian Senato della Repubblica, Spanish Congreso de los Diputados, - what do such political chambers have in common? Existing political systems are based on two principles: getting power through combat, and then creating/revising laws and rules through combat.

Combat is sometimes physical (toppling your opponent militarily), sometimes economic (establishing a trade embargo, to starve your opponent of resources), sometimes propaganda-based (waging a media campaign to discredit your opponent's reputation), and sometimes through voting-related activity (lobbying, forming alliances, fighting to win votes in key seats), with the aim to 'defeat' the opposition.

Creating/revising laws and rules is what you do once you are in power. These might be constitutional rules, rules of precedence, judicial rulings, statutes, or other laws or codes of practice. Politicians battle for their rule-based proposal (which they hold to be best) to win, and battle to defeat the opposition's rival proposal.

This way of doing politics is based on "systemizing". First you analyse the most effective form of combat (itself a system) to win. If we do x, then we will obtain outcome y. Then you adjust the legal code (another system). If we pass law A, we will obtain outcome B.

My colleagues and I have studied the essential difference between how men and women think. Our studies suggest that (on average) more men are systemizers, and more women are empathizers. Since most political systems were set up by men, it may be no coincidence that we have ended up with political chambers that are built on the principles of systemizing.

So here's the dangerous new idea. What would it be like if our political chambers were based on the principles of empathizing? It is dangerous because it would mean a revolution in how we choose our politicians, how our political chambers govern, and how our politicians think and behave. We have never given such an alternative political process a chance. Might it be better and safer than what we currently have? Since empathy is about keeping in mind the thoughts and feelings of other people (not just your own), and being sensitive to another person's thoughts and feelings (not just riding rough-shod over them), it is clearly incompatible with notions of "doing battle with the opposition" and "defeating the opposition" in order to win and hold on to power.

Currently, we select a party (and ultimately a national) leader based on their "leadership" qualities. Can he or she make decisions decisively? Can they do what is in the best interests of the party, or the country, even if it means sacrificing others to follow through on a decision? Can they ruthlessly reshuffle their Cabinet and "cut people loose" if they are no longer serving their interests? These are the qualities of a strong systemizer.

Note we are not talking about whether that politician is male or female. We are talking about how a politician (irrespective of their sex) thinks and behaves.

We have had endless examples of systemizing politicians unable to resolve conflict. Empathizing politicians would perhaps follow Mandela and De Klerk's examples, who sat down to try to understand the other, to empathize with the other, even if the other was defined as a terrorist. To do this involves the empathic act of stepping into the other's shoes, and identifying with their feelings.

The details of a political system based on empathizing would need a lot of working out, but we can imagine certain qualities that would have no place.

Gone would be politicians who are skilled orators but who simply deliver monologues, standing on a platform, pointing forcefully into the air to underline their insistence - even the body language containing an implied threat of poking their listener in the chest or the face - to win over an audience. Gone too would be politicians who are so principled that they are rigid and uncompromising.

Instead, we would elect politicians based on different qualities: politicians who are good listeners, who ask questions of others instead of assuming they know the right course of action. We would instead have politicians who respond sensitively to another, different point of view, and who can be flexible over where the dialogue might lead. Instead of seeking to control and dominate, our politicians would be seeking to support, enable, and care.


http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_4.html

Blaze destroys wooden outbuildings

Breaking news from Channel Report:

http://www5.channelonline.tv/news/templates/jerseynews2.aspx?articleid=16033&zoneid=1

Blaze destroys wooden outbuildings

Wooden outbuildings at a light industrial site in Jersey caught fire this evening. At one time a plume of acrid black smoke was blowing over the St Brelade's Bay area. Two units were severely damaged - they contained cars and fishing gear - but a team of 20 firefighters managed to prevent the blaze spreading to other nearby buildings. The fire was in the La Moye Farm area and the cause has yet to be established. Nearby residents were advised to keep their windows closed. The fire was spotted at around 6.45pm and was under control within an hour. But had it not been for the prompt action of the first firefighters at the scene removing acetylene gas bottles, the blaze could have been far worse. Two crews from St Helier and a crew from St Brelade attended the blaze.

I was in the vicinity at the time, and noticed an ambulance also going to and from the scene, so perhaps some firefighters needed to be treated for smoke inhalation. The honorary police turned up promptly and directed traffic away from going towards the area - for some reason fires bring out the voyeur (or vulture?) in people, and the narrow road to Beauport could have easily become blocked for emergency services. Don't people think?

I spoke to a chap (a retired States' Chief Officer) who lives along the start of the road, and he told me that he had complained several times to States departments about how this light industrial estate was not properly monitored, and was a health and safety hazard. The same seems to have been true of the Broadland's area, which was also described as "a disaster waiting to happen". I do wonder how well regulated business like this are, and how often health and safety go to inspect them. Where acetylene gas bottles are concerned, regulation needs to be tight, and it appears to be extremely lax.

The Health and Safety Inspectorate enforces wide-ranging and effective legislation which sets standards for health and safety at work. It forms part of the Social Security department, and is already looking into the fairground accident which happened despite inspections.

The Minister for Social Security is Senator Paul Routier, standing again for election. The Assistant Minister is Deputy Peter Troy, hoping to try for Senator. Perhaps the forthcoming elections will help them to see that the Health and Safety Inspectorate ensures that fires like this are minimised, and ramshackle businesses, especially those who leave acetylene gas bottles on the premises, are properly monitored, and closed down if they pose a significant risk.

They do issue prohibition notices at:

http://www.gov.je/SocialSecurity/HSI/Whats+New/Noticedetails.htm

but there are not a great many, and you have to go back to 2004 to find "inappropriate storage of highly flammable liquids".

I've also - out at St Martin, near the chiropractor on the road down to St Catherine - seen people digging up the road with hammer drills, with no protective clothing, not even eye masks. That was only last year.

Please post any incidents where health and safety is definitely flouted on the comments area. Perhaps we can see the scale of the problem.

A Cry for Help

A heartbreaking letter in the JEP yesterday. This letter is a cry for help.

It remains to be seen if any of our politicians will comment or look into these kinds of situations. How many young adults are there like this? What contingency plans - if any - are being put in place to help these adults when their parents are not able to cope any longer?

Obviously, politicians can delegate finding the answers to these questions to their civil servants, because after all, that is what the civil service is there for. But how well do the politicians monitor what is being done? And how much personal contact do they make with the families concerned? Do they follow individual cases up, and get reports on them? Is it so beneath them, or are they so busy that they cannot?

I would imagine the particular politicians who would be involved are, in this instance, Ben Shenton, and Jim Perchard, as being involved with Social Services, and Paul Routier regarding any help from the Employment and Social Security side. Paul Routier actually has a handicapped son, although considerably more able than Martin, the young man mentioned in the letter below.

It would be nice if they just made contact with the family concerned. Obviously help has to go through their departments, but we do not elect Senators and Deputies to be aloof rulers sitting like oriental magnates in ivory towers. Politicians should not forget to reach out, forget that it is the individual that matters, and not just the grand design. The grand design - like that of William Beveridge - only comes because someone has listened to many individuals.

Data Protection Note: The Letter is Public Domain, available on the JEP website.

http://www.thisisjersey.com/2008/07/24/what-now-for-my-autistic-son/

From Angela Tuohey.

MY son, Martin, has been a pupil at Mont à l'Abbé School for 15 years. He is leaving this month. Both Martin and the school have undergone many changes in that time since he started at the nursery in 1993.

Before going any further, I want to give heartfelt thanks to the many teachers, school assistants and other professionals who have worked so patiently and tirelessly with Martin over this time, helping our family - he has two younger brothers - through many challenging and difficult patches caused by autism and learning difficulties.

Our family now face the future with some trepidation. Following many meetings and discussions, there may be a small glimmer of hope at the end of the tunnel, although there is still no guarantee of work for our son, as he would need support in the workplace.

There has been much talk of 'tight budgets' and 'limited resources'. Even my requests for Martin to join a youth club - my son is at present non-verbal, i.e. mute - have been rebuffed. However, we have been offered daycare for Martin, for which we are grateful.

To have reached this stage, though, and to have gained help and support for this young man (19 this year) has been an ongoing battle. This, too, at a time when it would normally be possible for parents to have less stress and responsibility bearing down on them after years of caring and coping. A child leaving school should surely be a time of hope and celebration rather than fear and uncertainty.

This is not a plea for sympathy. We love our son dearly and are very proud of his achievements. He has come such a long way from a little boy unable to cope with any change or noise to a young man who wants to explore, learn, try new things. He needs support and help to do this. As his mother, I shall do all I can for him, but time is not on my side.

What happens when parents of disabled youngsters can't cope any more?

Martin and many others have the right to a fair chance. It is not their fault that they are in this situation. There is so much money being spent on roads and development while all these voices go unheard.

A Mean form of Testing

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. Of course there is always the right to refuse treatment to a person who cannot afford it. You can always 'pass by on the other side'. That may be sound economics. It could not be worse morals.... The essence of a satisfactory health service is that the rich and the poor are treated alike, that poverty is not a disability, and wealth is not advantaged.

Aneurin Bevan, "In Place of Fear"

The Jersey system of attendance allowance is described as follows:

Attendance allowance (income-tested): Payable to a severely disabled person or a disabled child aged 4 or older who requires extra care and attention. The allowance is paid after 6 months of disability. The allowance is subject to an annual income ceiling of £51,511.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/2006-2007/europe/jersey.html


Recently (see article below), Paul Routier, the Minister in charge of Jersey's new income support scheme has come under fire, because attendance allowance for minors is being assessed as part of parental income, and under the new scheme, parents are worse off. It is not helped by the fact that in place of a simple application for one kind of benefit, there is now a form that weighs in something of the order of 20 odd pages to be completed.

I was reminded of Lord Addington, speaking on this kind of thing in England, with means testing. He said:

One has to go through a bureaucratic process and therefore, on the margins, that will probably waste money--through reassessments and so on--and incur greater costs. The bureaucratic system does not help.

Attendance allowance is given to those who, under the old Poor Law in England were termed "impotent poor".

The impotent poor could not look after themselves or go to work. They included the ill, the infirm, the elderly, and children with no-one to properly care for them. It was generally held that they should be looked after.


Because of this, and quite rightly, applicants are is subject to a medical report by an independent doctor appointed by the social security department for this purpose.

When it comes to the point that such applicants would clearly be unable to understand or complete any form, however simple, because of the severity of their handicap, and they are children, their parents have to apply on their behalf. Unlike other matters regarding income support, the lot of these children is unlikely to improve substantially in terms of independence, they may often need supervision for the rest of their lives. If the parents threw up their hands, and asked the State to take over this job, it would be at considerably greater cost. And yet these same parents are burdened with vexatious form filling and scrutiny where a medical report should be sufficient.

There is a wonderful debate in the Irish Parliament, where the speaker completely loses touch with reality. Here is his rational argument for means testing:

The real trouble about all this appears to be the means test. This only seems to arouse a lot of discussion and a lot of discord. I can never really understand this because through all our lives whether we are looking for a loan from the bank to buy a house or getting a car on hire purchase there is always the means test, no matter what class one belongs to.

Of course, you don't have to buy a car, it is your choice whether you want to be means tested and buy one. Having a severely mentally handicapped child is not a matter of choice. It is not something that people go out and actively seek! The complete inability of the speaker to see the difference shows how utterly removed he is from the lives of ordinary people.

Returning to the matter in hand. Not only is the State getting "community care", it is also getting a cheap alternative to institutional care, and it is no surprise that parents are going to be angry when after all the bureaucratic hoops, they are actually ending up in a worse regime than the ancient Poor Law, which despite its many deficiencies, looked upon the "impotent poor" as needing to be looked after by the State, not dumped on parents. Means testing under these circumstances is a mean form of testing, "a principle that eats like an acid", as Bevan put it, of those already facing a struggle that will not go away.

Kathleen Jones summed it up well, when she said:


To the politician, community care is a useful piece of rhetoric; to the sociologist, it is a stick to beat institutional care with; to the civil servant, it is a cheap alternative to institutional care which can be passed to the local authorities for action, or inaction; to the visionary, it is a dream of a new society in which people really do care; to social services departments, it is a nightmare of heightened public expectations and inadequate resources to meet them.

We have a long way to go to find a just society like Bevan's vision, in which the essence of a satisfactory social security support service is that the rich and the poor, but severely handicapped and in need of care, are treated alike, that poverty is not a disability, and wealth is not advantaged.

---

http://www.thisisjersey.com/2008/05/23/parents%e2%80%99-anger-at-income-support/

Parents' anger at income support

By Harry McRandle

PARENTS with disabled children at Mont à l'Abbé School vented their anger to a Scrutiny panel yesterday at the prospect of being much worse off under the new income support scheme. They were among various members of the public who told the Economic Affairs Scrutiny sub-panel how means testing of the attendance allowance benefit will make life more difficult for them. Their stories led to some spiky clashes between panel member Deputy Geoff Southern and Social Security Minister Paul Routier, when he later gave evidence on the new system. Deputy Southern accused the minister of depriving the most vulnerable by means testing an allowance paid to 750 Islanders at a cost of about £4 million a year. Senator Routier may be on the verge of a u-turn on attendance allowance for families with disabled children.

Income Support

Jersey has a new centralised income support scheme, but a letter in the JEP highlighted that people are having problems with it. A letter relating to this was in the paper yesterday (details below).

I wonder if any survey of any kind is planned to see how people are coping with the new income support scheme. This is one of several anecdotal cases of people writing to the JEP from having problems with income support.

It is not clear to me what mechanisms are in place for assessing feedback in relation to the scheme, and addressing any deficiencies; after all, it is unlikely that any brand new scheme of legislation will be perfect from the start. Lack of complaints do not necessarily mean the scheme is working well, but may just mean that people imagine that their concerns may be ignored and dismissed.

I notice from the Minutes of the Scrutiny sub-committe that they are looking at a "call for evidence" which may well address this issue "once the system has bedded in". That is mentioned in the January Minutes. Now that we are in March, and GST is only one month away, is there any definite scale for that or plans for how it is to be implemented? We shall see.

http://www.scrutiny.gov.je/minutes.asp?panelid=32
http://www.scrutiny.gov.je/view_doc.asp?doc=documents/minutes/S-27356-37939-632008.pdf&panelid=32&reviewid=0&target=min

---

Income Support system is not doing its job

From Peter Marriott.

80 Journeaux Court,
St Helier.

I AM prompted to write this letter because it affects not only my wife and myself, but also all elderly disabled or semi-disabled persons, of whom there are many who, for various reasons, cannot use the bus.
We are 70 and 77 years old respectively and many people like us find it difficult getting on to a bus or getting to a convenient collection point, so we have to use our own cars.
We were able to maintain our limited independence with the help of the transport allowance, but that has now been removed, thereby depriving us and restricting our everyday activities which we previously enjoyed.
Other readers' comments would make the authorities reconsider, perhaps. As I see it, all the new Income Support scheme has achieved is to further humiliate the very people who need it most.

Published 26/3/2008