Looking at the short term is a threat to living standards

It wasn’t an unusual event for anyone else, of course, but it’s been a long time seen I’ve seen anyone deliver post on a Saturday in Jersey.

This is no big deal, of course. I’ve managed to survive with only five mail delivery days a week, even though my weekly magazine doesn’t now arrive until Monday when I used to get it on Saturday.

So I’m not criticising Jersey Post for cutting the number of delivery days because of the well-known financial pressures they face. But as I sat contemplating the quality of life still to be found in the UK, I wondered whether a reduced postal service was a symptom of a more general trend facing Jersey. Perhaps living standards in the Island are being sacrificed because of our own particular financial pressures which may be (indeed, almost certainly are) only temporary.

There may not be many meaningful comparisons between Jersey and the Cotswolds, and in any case I’ve always believed that the argument has been won. Life in the Channel Islands is generally much better than life in most parts of the UK, including the Cotswolds. However, there is plenty to admire in the lifestyle that many enjoy in the UK, including the fact that they still get letters delivered on a Saturday. So is Jersey really still streets ahead in the lifestyle stakes?

The fact that I am returning to the Island on Friday is clear proof that I have little doubt that I’m still better off in Jersey. But it’s by no means as clear-cut as it once was.

We all know the problems of living in a small, crowded and fairly isolated Island. The cost of living, the price of accommodation, limited social benefits and the restrictions resulting from the Island’s size all have to be weighed against the absence of social problems, the attractive Island lifestyle, the environment and, of course, lower taxes.

Most Islanders would probably agree that Jersey is still comfortably on the right side of this balance, but the balance could swing the other way and we could start losing some advantages in living standards.

The threat is a result of the Island becoming the undisputed champion of short-termism. Faced with an immediate problem, we will, first of all, express surprise because we didn’t see it coming. Then we will react and solve the problem without even thinking about the longer-term consequences.

The way we have had to tackle unemployment is an example of short-termism. For many years we have had very low unemployment. Then the recession hit and the Council of Ministers pulled out all the stops to help jobless Islanders, even though there were very few of them compared to other countries.

Like all caring governments, the Council of Ministers couldn’t just ignore rising unemployment, which is a tragedy for quite a few Islanders. The construction industry suffered particularly badly, so there were strident calls for more help from the States. The Council of Ministers answered the call to the extent that they were apparently prepared to suspend normal planning and employment restrictions to get Jersey working again. They call it fast-tracking, but it really just means lowering standards.

That’s a perfectly acceptable policy just so long as everyone understands the possible long-term consequences. The danger is that there could be irreparable damage from trying to solve this short-term problem.

Protection must obviously be provided for those who lose their jobs through no fault of their own, and that doesn’t mean providing short-term work schemes which can only be a stop-gap. It means having a longer-term economic strategy which sees beyond the next recession, whenever that is.

In the meantime, the States will no doubt be persuaded to respond to the call from businessmen who want government to immediately invest more into the economy and, while they are at it, save the retail industry, which is undergoing inevitable and unstoppable change. We need action now, is their mantra, and to hell with the consequences.

Most (but by no means all) would agree that the government should take a more active role in helping the economy to grow, but it’s got to be on a long-term basis, and certainly not at any cost.

It is obvious that the economy is indeed vitally important, and much more effort needs to go into securing its future, as most other benefits flow from that. But the maintenance and improvement in living standards are vitally important too, and these are sometimes sacrificed as a quick solution to immediate economic difficulties.

My Cotswolds moment taught me that many people in the UK have maintained their standard of living despite the depth of the recession and despite the introduction of some pretty brutal austerity measures. Those measures may have been too harsh, as the opposition parties claim, but the UK is also saddled with huge debts, so there is undoubtedly a long-term problem that needs tackling as well as a shorter-term one.

This doesn’t apply to Jersey, which is not in a similar position. It has no debts, it has a relatively healthy budget and it has very low taxes, so the fiscal position is very much stronger than, most including that of the Cotswolds. There shouldn’t be any reason to panic.

The loss of a weekend mail delivery may not quite constitute panicking, and it’s not much of a sacrifice to make if it secures the future of Jersey Post. But once it’s gone, it’s gone, and we are very unlikely to see it reinstated.

There are many other areas where progress has been halted or even reversed in an attempt to meet the short-term requirements of bean counters. Often this is unavoidable because the financial pressures are too great, as even people in the Cotswolds suffering from the recession will understand.

But we are told that Jersey’s economy is still relatively strong and promises have repeatedly been made about keeping taxes low. So it makes you wonder why, then, it sometimes looks as though the Island’s living standards have to slip.

Perhaps nobody cares.

Peter Body