To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
The States are quick to spend other people’s money
Share this:
From Roger Bale.
I AM concerned and I would be interested to see if others share these concerns.
I read that the Jersey States are contemplating forward budgets running into two billion pounds. A billion pounds needs some explanation. It is in fact 1,000 million. Or, a billion minutes ago, Jesus was alive.
My first concern is that I was brought up to make money before one spent money. Because the States have the right to
demand money from people, it concerns me that the States are, by apparently putting expenditure ahead of income, putting Jersey’s taxpayers on a very slippery slope.
My second concern is the proposed capital expenditure. Based on past experience, the States are not very good at producing a practical result within a realistic budget. There appear to be two reasons for this.
Firstly, on all previous projects there always appears to be a Mister Nobody (remember him forgetting to take foreign exchange cover in respect of the incinerator project costing the taxpayer £3 million?) making an appearance.
Secondly, the purpose of the capital expenditure and the taxpayer it is intended to serve becomes lost with the result of overly expensive buildings which would only be approved by people spending other people’s money.
By way of an example, the Airport building has an overhang, which no doubt cost a lot of money. However, the overhang where passengers arrive in their cars does not allow people to alight from the right-hand side of their cars, let alone get their baggage out of their boot, on a rainy day without getting wet.
Aviation Beauport’s terminal building has a comparatively inexpensive, aesthetically pleasing passenger / car cover which enables passengers there to alight in the rain without getting wet. The difference is that Aviation Beauport, the business, was spending its own money and is dependent on the income, which its satisfied customers produce.
Related