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.
Signs of our parlous finances
Share this:
It has already been established that the Museum will shut up shop until April, and although the future of the present lifeguard system is under review, it seems probable that the services of Australian professionals, who have served us so well for so many years, will no longer be required.
The Museum closure reflects, of course, the general financial difficulties of Jersey Heritage. However, if the public purse were in a healthier condition, subsidies for heritage would almost certainly be available. That they are not is indicative of just how acute our problems have become.
Something similar can be said about the review of lifeguard services. If the figures mentioned so far are accurate, any savings made by dispensing by calling time on the Australians will be small. Other lifeguards – perhaps provided by the RNLI – will have to be employed, but it is evident that even the most minor economies are being examined as potential contributors to the £65 million in cuts planned as part of the programme to address looming deficits.
In broad terms, saving pennies as well as pounds makes sense and the principle must be applauded, but the decisions in respect of the Museum and the lifeguards cannot be seen purely in terms of hard cash. They also broadcast the message that we are having to resort to quite desperate measures and even that, as a community, we are losing confidence.
The phrase ‘we must emphasise that we are still open for business’ has been used in connection with the finance industry when, for instance, anyone has suggested that the brakes should be applied to growth. Sadly, as far as another key industry, tourism, is concerned, closing museums and axing lifeguard systems that have contributed colour and character as well as security to our beaches give the impression that we are less open for holiday business than was formerly the case.
Although it is clear that public sector rationalisation must be sought in every department and at every level, it is equally clear that when action is taken it must be without the risk of collateral damage that ultimately costs more than it saves.
Related