Utterly perplexed

I heard the Chief Minister's summing up speech in the States of the debate on the committee of inquiry report and I have to say I am totally perplexed.


After decades of abuse of children in care as evidenced in the report the  proposal is to have a  a new Children's Commissioner, set up yet more panels and boards of States members and produce a new strategy document.  That's it.  More talking shops, more bits of paper, one person - a  Children's Commissioner - to change everything!




According to some this is the most damning report from an inquiry they have seen.  With the exception of the Connetable of St John who argued against one item, no one contested the Chief Minister's prescription of signing up to all the recommendations.  Yet many of those same recommendations are exactly the opposite of the States policy and the programme of the Council of Ministers since ministerial government started.  Overnight they collectively volte face and start being the best to implement policies that last month they collectively opposed?


We now have ministers in the CoM who opposed the very set up of the committee of enquiry, ministers who opposed the creation of a Children's Minister in 2009. We have ministers who have derailed or opposed every significant move to reform the States who are now it seems going to support the exhortation in the report to adopt Clothier and Carswell.  Ministers who have spent a decade or more in the Assembly gleefully pushing every opportunity to adopt laws facilitating the finance industry are overnight going to now prioritise social justice measures as the report indicates. 

To quote Jim Royle ,  My Arse!



Where else in the world would you receive such a damning report and wake up the day after a debate on it to find exactly the same ministers and assistant ministers in office. No one accountable, no one taking responsibility in any way that matters.


The Chief Minister quoted Deputy Bree in saying something like nothing can be the same again.  To me it looks like if you are in the magic circle everything is still exactly the same.


Plus ça change.....

Unrequited Correspondence

Another in an occasional series of correspondence to States of Jersey ministers.  I know this one was delivered as I got an 'out of office' reply.  I'm not sure how long the Senator was away, but I'm sure he will have been back at his desk at some point in the intervening 4 months.

Unravelling the 'Gorstian' knot

Legend has it that  Alexander the Great attempted to untie the Gordian  knot. When he could not find the end to the knot, he sliced it with his sword.  He solved a seemingly impossible puzzle using unconventional means.  I wonder if the curious mechanics involved in the recent States debate on the successful proposition to increase funding to the Committee of Inquiry might have created a modern parallel.


Like all good mysteries, this play has several sub plots.  It was notable that the six who voted against were ministers or assistant ministers. Add the External Relations Minister's abstention and a couple of ministerial absences and it was clear the Council of Minister must have been collectively against.  We have the tricky position of the Chief Minister in bringing a proposition that, had collective responsibility  been  applied, he would have likely had to vote against his own proposition!   

We also have the curious position of Senator Bailhache who spoke in the debate and then abstained on the vote as being conflicted.  What one wonders does he think is the point of debate if not to influence it? If it is to influence it then surely  if you are conflicted enough to abstain you are conflicted enough to not try influencing the outcome?   There is also the strange item reported on BBC Jersey  saying he said that there was nothing new arising in the Inquiry.  How could the Senator know that unless he was privy to the internal workings of the Committee or already knew the outcome?  


There is a further question that arises from the vote.  When a majority of Ministers present vote together and against the overwhelming majority of the Assembly, one has to wonder about accountability and responsibility.  Imagine had collective responsibility been invoked we should have had the whole Council of Ministers outvoted more than two to one.  In any functioning democracy that sort of defeat would lead to Government resignation or a vote of no confidence. 




But of course that didn't happen. The assembly voted with CM Gorst, so all's well that ends well.  It shoudn't be surprising - he was elected by the Assembly to that post. But so too were all the other ministers, even if they were proposed by the CM.  So to whom are they answerable?  If the Assembly does not act when there is such a disconnect between them and the contres  then ministers are all but unaccountable , except perhaps to the CM when collective responsibility is invoked. That is not good government.  


I see this as the inevitable  consequence of  having a piecemeal patched together set of expediences and compromises rather than a designed coherently underpinned system.  I dont hold out much hope of change.  The Assembly is collectively too supine and those who hold office quite  comfortable with the current arrangements.  Things will rumble on as they are until an Alexander turns up and cuts through the convoluted and unsolvable knot into which the Assembly has twisted itself.

Priorities

I have tried a number of times to compose a response to the Council of Ministers' proposed priorities 2015-18 document. It has been challenging not least because the document makes absolutely no sense to me. Which is a great pity as I broadly agree at least two of the four priorities ought to be objectives for the life of this elected States.  So instead of a structured posting I'm going to post some observations and see if someone elese can make a coherent formulation of either the Ministers' priorities or my notes.

I'll start at the beginning – the contents page. Now you know things are bad when even the contents page causes a problem. We have three sections presented - setting the scene, then developing the priorities, followed by creating a sustainable future. The first two seem sensible, but the third does not flow or follow. The largest part of the section has nothing to say about the future, it spends much of its wording giving justification for the selection of the four priorities. But crucially a sustainable future is NOT one of those priorities. Why would you have a major heading of a section with a title that is most definitely not what the document is not about? Either it is grossly incompetent or there is a will to deceive the casual reader of the real nature of the contents.

It is very confusing to have page numbers the header of part of the document, but not all of it. It makes referencing difficult as the on screen display does not match the layout version.

On to the Introduction. Nothing much there about the content, but why include a whole blank page with just the word Introduction on it? A complete waste for anyone who had decided to print the document.  

Setting the scene. Now things get 'interesting' . The report starts with a quote from the OECD wellbeing report. What is said is true, but it is simultaneously a half truth. The cherry picked bits are all the positives.

Notice the areas where we scored particularly badly both relatively and absolutely - civic engagement and environmental quality - do not figure in the Council of Minsiters' priorities.

At the foot of the page we have a statement “Over the next 20 years the number of people over-65 will double and there will be nearly three times as many people over-85. Fewer people working, fewer people paying tax, more demands on our health and pension systems. This is unsustainable.” The first sentence is probably true, but I note there are reasons to think life expectancy here is declining see ¹ .The second sentence is almost certainly false. People do not stop being tax payers at 65 or 85 years old. Since the introduction of GST it is almost certain that everyone resident in the Island pays some tax - one of the great 'benefits' claimed by the proponents when it was introduced.

The details on page 8 are inconsistent. On the third paragraph it reads To enable us to meet this financial challenge, we need to drive productivity-led economic growth". By the 7^th paragraph this imperative had transformed into "Economic growth and public sector productivity are our preferred options to meet the financial challenges we face”. We do not need to do something if it is a specific form of an option. There seems to be some very woolly thinking, or is it simply mantra regurgitation occurring here?

Health and wellbeing is covered on page 9 (or is it 8?), and there are some laudable aims here. But again we have a sentence that causes great concern. At the end of paragraph 4 we read "Declining health leads to social exclusion, loss of earnings, and adverse consequences in the wider economy." But in the section quoted here two paragraphs above we were led to think that it was the ageing population that was creating a health demand problem. Retired people do not in general lose earnings being ill because in general they are not working and so not earning in the first place. Again there seems to be some fundamental inconsistency in the minds of the ministers here.

Page 12 is the education section. Saying I have misgivings about the thrust of this section would be an understatement. More than once this section suggests that the purpose of education is to mould children and youths into supporting the economy. It is quite disgraceful to write "The fact that some of our children are not fulfilling their true potential is a waste of Jersey’s

most precious resource – our people - and an economic inefficiency we can ill afford” This notion that people exist and are valued only by the extent they make an economic contribution is outrageous. I don't believe I have seen such an unspeakably illiberal suggestion since a former Home Affairs Minister said he wanted more political control of the police force.

There is a practical problem with the proposal "Jersey’s education system is aligned to, and supports, the Island’s economic needs” It takes a decade or more to educate and train someone . We have little idea what will be the economic need in ten years time. Several members of the Council of Ministers were in the States a decade ago . How many of them then were arguing bringing propositions etc for IT education to train a generation for today's digital economy?

A remark must be made about the quote in this section: "Education is the most powerful weapon you can use to change the world". I think this is quite inappropriate to use here. Madiba first gave that quote on his visit to Boston in 1990 , just months after his release from prison. He was not talking about education his people for taking jobs in the white controlled economy of the day – he had supported campaign for divestment from South Africa! He was talking about the sort of change of world that the OECD has us scored as 0 in the the wellbeing report cited above.

Economic growth is the final priority, addressed on page 13. I cannot recall a time when the States of Jersey didn't have economic growth as a priority. It seems we just cannot get enough of it. This time round we have a new twist. This is not ordinary economic growth this is Council of Ministers' sustainable productivity-led economic growth.

In theory one can achieve a long running period of economic growth from efficiency improvements without any increase in material consumption or pollution or population growth. It is extraordinarily hard however as countless governments around the world have discovered when they have tried it. There is a rapidly diminishing return on the effort involved. It would require a society of less work and increasing low energy, low consumption leisure activity. That goes against several generations of belief that increased material and financial acquisition is the way to a better future. And therein lies the problem.

If the policy succeeds we have more people on average with more disposable income, and more tax revenue for the States presumably, but equally the potential to consume even more than now. That's not a good outcome in the face of resource limits, climate change and the ecology of the Island. But what if educated, well trained people are not motivated to have more money. Also there is nothing to suggest we would tackle the increasing inequality in income and wealth that would be expected produce. Then the policy fails as more and more comfortably off people effectively downshift work and lives at ever earlier ages.

Even if that were the intention it is quite unclear if it might be manageable. The current global economic conditions are quite unlike any in the lifetime of any of our currently elected politicians out side perhaps of Japan. Half decade lows in prices of gold, oil, iron ore, copper, corn and interest rates point clearly to a deflationary environment. Growth of any sort under such circumstances is a rare thing. The goldilocks economics proposed by the Council of Ministers works the other way round – the productivity gains eg from new technology, produces price deflation (and increased consumption). We have it the other way round – a sequence more likely to lead to recession. The more likely outcome is lower costs, lower wages and an even lower tax revenue for the States. What is suggested is a step closer to what is needed than any previous growth ambitions of the States. It is still some way however from the steady state economy² that I would advocate.

Of course I have again to comment on the quote. “Someone's sitting in the shade of a tree today because someone planted a tree a long time ago”. Warren Buffet . You might think that in an Island so dependent on the finance industry they would have got right the spelling of the name of probably the world's most famous living investor -Warren Buffett. If you cannot get such an easily checked detail right .........

Of course Mr Buffett was referring to investing for the long term (smart man - he's right too on that aspect). However there is also a deep fallacy in that quote. It is not the case that all trees are planted by someone. Who do you think planted the Amazon, or the taiga, or the great rainforests of Africa? Trees for the most part are self seeded, they are the bounty of nature. When you start thinking that a tree can only be because someone planted it, you are in danger of thinking all that is of value is that which humans create. It also underlines a critical point so often overlooked in economics. It is nature who provides 'free services' like trees and pollinators and rain without which we would have no economy. We cannot have a sustainable economy, let alone growth, unless we have a sustainable underpinning foundation – the ecosystem services. As our species consumes and pollutes increasingly beyond the capacity of the planet ³ , as it has done since the 1970's, we get further and further from that possibility.

1/ http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/03/16/ije.dyr061.full

2/ http://steadystate.org/discover/

3/ http://unearthnews.org/2013/10/01/earth-overshoot-day-how-can-we-reduce-our-ecological-footprint/