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.
Until we get good politicians, we are in for a rough ride
Share this:
From Brian Hotton.
I MUST comment on your report headlined ‘One bright idea saves £50,000 for the States (JEP, 7 March).
I am glad that Transport’s chief officer, John Rogers, has recognised the excellent initiative shown by Simon Bertie-Roberts, especially when, as Mr Rogers said, ‘It was the people doing the work who had the best ideas. It is heartening to see Simon’s commitment to making taxpayers money go further.’
How very refreshing to read such news, that a technical assistant can make this type of saving without any hidden cost to the States.
Back on 12 September 2009 the JEP published a story about a local firm of consultants which in essence said that technicians were paid too much while top public servants were not paid enough. Nine days later in the letters column I wrote: ‘How can HBA draw the conclusion that our senior public servants are worth more than the Prime Minister of the UK?’
Let us just look to Health and Social Services. Where at one time there was a chief officer and his ‘underlings’, we now have a director, a manager, a consultant staying at the Grand Hotel and another firm of consultants doing about £800,000 of ‘consultancy’ and, of course, the usual underlings.
The Health Minister has told us that the consultant staying at the Grand has saved us £600,000 since being in his post. On the face of it, that is a good saving. However, Health have had to pay out £800,000-odd to a firm of consultants, plus £218,000 a year to another ‘consultant’, and of course there is the extra managem ent post referred to above at about £100,000.
What we must now do is look at where the £600,000 saving was made. Were there redundancies? If there were, then they came at a cost, but it will not come from Health. It will come from the money which Senator Ozouf allocated for the purpose of severance pay. Was this greater than the £600.000 savings?
The truth of it as I see it is that there has been no saving to the States. There has been a sleight of hand – in one pocket and out of the other.
Until such times as we have politicians of the calibre needed to see through this type of charade (there are few who do) and through the sleight of hand and smoke and mirrors, this Island is in for a rough ride.
Related