By John Henwood
People have from time to time asked me whether I’m going to seek election and if not, why not. Indeed, some years ago when I was chairman of the local Institute of Directors this newspaper ran a leader based on the assumption that I took the role as a springboard to States membership; at about the same time columnist Helier Clement – sadly no longer with us – flatteringly described me as “leader of the bosses’ union” with political aspirations. I might have thought about it around that time, but the States appointed me to the Clothier Panel and that work, affording so many insights, acted as a powerful disincentive.
Since that time, I answered the question by describing myself as temperamentally unsuited to States membership. If I needed convincing that I was unfitted for the role, my better half would remind me that every time I sat in the public gallery (something I used to do quite a lot) I left clutching my head and muttering expletives. I just would not have the patience to suffer the seemingly interminable, repetitive, rambling speeches at the end of which either the Assembly decided to do nothing or made a decision which was never acted upon.
All that said, we’re a parliamentary democracy and someone has to do it. So, whether we have disagreed with their policies (which I frequently do) or the way they have conducted themselves in the public arena, I believe we owe the outgoing States Members our thanks for their contribution. Let us give them the credit for trying, for doing their best, even though we have demonstrated that it wasn’t quite good enough. We should also thank those who put themselves forward and wish the successful candidates well in their endeavours.
Well, we wouldn’t wish them anything else would we, because everything they do is for the benefit of all of us. Sometimes I get the feeling that some States Members forget that they don’t work for pressure groups, however well connected, media savvy and vocal they are; they work to achieve what’s best for the most even when action is difficult and may be unpopular with some.
It’s far too early to begin to begin assessing, even less passing judgment on, the new Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers and I hope Deputy Kristina Moore in particular will be allowed a honeymoon period without undue criticism, something which her immediate predecessor was not afforded. The auguries are good – as Chief Minister she has been granted her entire first choice Council of Ministers.
Prior to her election by the Assembly, Deputy Moore set out her 100-day plan. Nothing new in that, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the initiator of that course of action in 1933 when he took responsibility for what he described as the “stricken nation” of America. During his first three months he led his government to enact over 75 pieces of legislation, a veritable whirlwind of activity which was dubbed the ‘New Deal’.
Many looked for a new deal for Jersey (although we could hardly be described as stricken) prior to the election and in the significant change we have seen to the makeup of the Assembly it is tempting to believe it may be about to happen. I’m not holding my breath though, because it’s going to be difficult.
The new Chief Minister’s 100-day plan is ambitious and proposes tackling a number of issues which figured during the hustings. Top of the list is a mini-budget to bring forward measures to address what she terms the “cost of living crisis”; this time I don’t hear anyone saying ‘crisis, what crisis?’ For those of us who lived through 20% interest rates and the winter of discontent this is not of those proportions, but there’s no doubting the seriousness of the situation. One assumes that “measures to deliver targeted support” have a cost implication. And that’s my worry about aspects of the 100-day plan.
Deputy Moore includes lifting the minimum wage and hastening the living wage; support for small businesses over repayments under the Covid payroll scheme; a new government department – the Cabinet Office; another new hospital review; funding for school meals; a new commission to look at people and skills; free sanitary products; a new cultural centre. All worthy objectives, but every one of them has a cost. Nowhere in the Chief Minister’s plan does she mention how she proposes we pay for these initiatives. Indeed, the word ‘economy’ is not to be found in the plan. What one hopes to see as a matter of priority is attention to our economy which has flatlined for two decades and the only answer to date has been to make matters worse by increasing both red tape and taxation.
We need to re-ignite the initiative culture that made us great. Cut the shackles on wealth-creating businesses and reduce taxes to encourage enterprise – that’s the way to pay for all the new nice-to-have things.
Lest that be taken as criticism – it is offered as advice – there are aspects of the 100-day plan I applaud. Number 10 on the list is “Establish a public service ombudsperson” (I quibble with the woke ‘ombudsperson’ as ombudsman is a gender-neutral word). This was something recommended by Clothier over 20 years ago and which the States later – much later – agreed to do, but never got round to. And give that person teeth sharp enough to bite those guilty of maladministration.
I like the Older Persons Forum (well, I would wouldn’t I) the introduction of prefabricated houses to help ease the real housing crisis and reorganising government in a way that will provide greater accountability. Lest we forget, that is what the One Gov plan was supposed to do, had it not been sabotaged. Already individual departments are rebuilding the silos and they must be taken down once and for all.
I wish you and your government well Chief Minister. Deliver and we’ll all be behind you.
