SOME time ago I was discussing with a colleague the passing of a mutual acquaintance. This was someone I did not like, admire or respect and it emerged my colleague felt the same way. Why then were others saying such nice things about him, I wondered. ‘Didn’t you know?’ he said. ‘We’re all good blokes when we’re dead.’
I was reflecting on that as I prepared to write this column and thinking I should say something about those former States Members who decided not to seek re-election and indeed those who are seeking another term, but may be rejected by the electorate. Here’s my problem: I’m not a hypocrite and will not write nice things about people of whom I was critical when they were in office just because they’ve gone. However, whatever I or anyone else thought of them as States Members – good, bad or indifferent – they were all in office because we put them there and their contributions should be acknowledged. So, perhaps the most positive thing I can say is that they did their best. Possibly the worst thing I can say is that they meant well.
In one of its last acts, the old States decided to increase by a very significant amount subsidies for higher education. Whether one regards packing the States’ public gallery for the debate with students as a cynical ploy or a smart political move, it worked – indeed, some States Members admitted that they dared not utter a word of opposition before such an audience.
I’m sure most people, like me, are in favour of equality of opportunity and no child who wants to go on to higher education should be denied that chance because their parents or guardians can’t afford to support them. But families with earnings of up to £200,000 a year will enjoy a public subsidy on the cost of sending their children to university. Bearing in mind the current average annual wage is under £40,000, giving a hand-out to those earning five times as much is unjustified. If those earning several multiples more than the average salary aren’t prepared to make sacrifices to support their children’s education, why should those on lower incomes be expected to do it for them?
Fortunately, outgoing Senator Philip Ozouf lodged a successful amendment to ensure that the plan was an interim one and the new States Assembly would have to return to the matter in due course. Perhaps by then we will have a government which takes a more prudent approach to spending our money. It should never be forgotten that everyone, even the least well off in our community, pays tax.
Then again, perhaps the next lot won’t be so very different from the last. We know that almost a third of them, including 11 Constables, will return unopposed. How can poor benighted voters expect to bring about the sweeping change that so many call for when 14 of the 49 stroll back in without having to justify their place in the Assembly to the electorate?
Indeed, I’m disenfranchised in my parish with both the Constable and the Deputy being unopposed, so my interest is in the Senatorial election. I will not presume to suggest who you should vote for, but I don’t mind providing a clue as to where a couple of my votes are going. I’m putting a cross against the names of two former Assistant Treasury Ministers; the first should have achieved a ministerial role long ago, but he blighted his prospects by voting against his boss, the minister – an offence for which he was sacked. Since then he has impressed with his diligence and determination as our most effective scrutineer. The other, also ministerial material, resigned from an assistant minister role at the Treasury (under a different minister) over a matter of principle. Since then she has returned to a scrutiny role to good effect. Both would grace the Senators’ bench and together they would make a good team at the Treasury. I am still deciding who else to support, but I certainly won’t be using all eight votes.
For what it’s worth, my advice is this: vote only for those you really want to represent you and don’t put a cross by the names of others just to use up all your votes. Remember, the vote you give to someone just because you can could be the vote that defeats the candidate you particularly want to get in.
