Comment: The Fool - No quarter given

Thursday 28 December 2017

In this month's column, the Fool talks about a recent decision made in the States Assembly and how the vote of four members could make things difficult for them come Election Day.

"If a politician ever asks you why they get such a hard time from those whom they serve, feel free to, metaphorically of course, beat this little tale of woe into them.

"On the 2^nd November, our government voted to distribute to each parish a share of £ 900,000. This was a sum set aside last year in the event that the States would have to start paying rates on their buildings to the Parish of St Helier, a proposition which was won, but whose implementation was delayed because of concerns over the wording of certain changes that would be required to the rates law.

"So far, so much time not spent on issues which improve the lives of ordinary islanders.

"Surprisingly, the ‘ooh, look, free money’ proposition to distribute the cash was passed by a thumping majority. Only four members voted against (as you ask, 2 Constables, 2 Deputies).  The Constable of St Helier, unsurprisingly given that it was his proposition, was not one of those to vote against, arguing that the money should not be left in the state’s coffers because of a technicality, and that it should be ratepayers who get to decide how the unexpected windfall is spent.

"On first sight, that might not seem an unreasonable outcome. Indeed, the very munificence of allowing other parishes to benefit is surely equalled, in local governments terms, only by the famously progressive Mayor of Trumpton’s decision to sequester Windy Miller’s 1967 grain harvest, and to share it with the spendthrift folk of both Chigley and Camberwick Green, who’d done nothing but get down and party all summer.

Pictured: Only four members of the States Assembly voted against a proposition to redistribute £900,000 among the 12 Parishes.

"Whilst the Fool pretends no insight into their motives for voting as they did, and without wanting to impugn the public’s normal views of certain States members, but did those four refuseniks who voted against the proposition actually act with some integrity? The case for the prosecution reads as follows.

•  1)     The ‘windfall’ did not appear by magic. It represented tax raised on the income of individual islanders. On the basis that it would be preferable if our government didn’t act like a drunken lottery winner squandering their good fortune on hookers and blow (and wasting the rest), surely the most appropriate course of action would be to return the unused funds to the people from whom it came? (Or at least hang onto it so as to not have to raise an additional £900,000 next year). 

• 2)     The reason that the cash has suddenly become available is that the States are, at present, legally prohibited from paying parish rates. Given that a share of the income is shortly to arrive on each Parish Treasurer’s bank account, it is reasonable to expect that it will be spent in the same manner (or in place of) income raised from rates receipts. Which pretty much looks like the States are paying, at least in part, each parish’s rates bill. As an island, we have grown rich on circumventing legislation to arrive at certain outcomes, but should this be a game our own government should be seen to be playing?

"In order that they don’t feel their votes were wasted, here’s a tip for the upstanding Constable and Deputy of Grouville, Deputy of Trinity, and Constable of St Mary (who may have been sensitive to the subject of wasteful parish spending), all of whom voted against the effective theft of taxpayers’ money, and blatant disregard for the island’s laws.

Take the money you didn’t want, keep to your pre-windfall spending plans for next year, and use the extra cash to reduce each of your parishioners’ rates assessments by a small amount next year. You’ll have acted with integrity, traffic will continue to flow at its normal rate through your Parish, and, given that it’s an election year, you’ll almost certainly have guaranteed your own personal income for another few years."