Thursday, 30 March 2017

Poverty in Jersey and the lies of the Council of Ministers

In November 2015, the States of Jersey Statistics Unit published their Income Distribution Survey, which shed some light on the shocking rates of relative poverty in Jersey.

In the 5 years since the previous survey, income inequality in Jersey shot through the roof and we became a more unequal society than the UK. A third of pensioners, a third of children and over half of single parent families live in relative poverty. The spending power of the poorest 10th of Islanders went down by 36%

These statistics are shameful for a rich Island and drastic action needs to be taken to make Jersey a fairer society where everyone is able to have a decent standard of living.

In the States sitting on the 14th March, Deputy Mike Higgins asked the Chief Minister for an update on inequality since that survey came out.

The Chief Minister said "relative low income is reducing".

In the States sitting on the 28th March, the Chief Minister and his assistant minister (Senator Paul Routier) were subjected to a barrage of questions on how they have reached this conclusion and what statistical evidence they have to back up such a claim.

The video above shows a politician who realises he has dug himself into a hole, and would prefer to keep digging rather than apologise for getting something wrong.

There is of course no tangible evidence whatsoever to back up the claim that relative low income is reducing in Jersey.

No real evidence exists either way (until the next Income Distribution Survey is produced in 2020), however it is clear that many of the government cutbacks to support provided to pensioners, disabled people and single parent families is likely to have exacerbated the current statistics we already have.

Following the false statements made in the States Assembly, Reform Jersey's vice-chairman Deputy Geoff Southern wrote an open letter to the Chief Minister ask him to withdraw that statement and apologise for misleading the States/ public.

After a contribution to the same effect from Deputy Richard Renouf of St Ouen, the Chief Minister responded as follows -

"Dear Geoff and Richard, 
Thank you for your emails. 
Income inequality did reduce when our economy was performing well before the financial crisis, but deteriorated as incomes fell and as low interest rates cut mortgage costs for some but did not benefit everyone. 
Now our economy is improving: average earnings have risen by more than inflation for the last four years; unemployment is at a six-year low and employment is at an all-time high. We saw economic growth of 5% in 2014 and a further 2.2% in 2015, more than double the forecast. The economy is clearly moving in the right direction, however I accept that until we have the next income distribution survey, we cannot be definitive about these complex interacting factors 
The next such survey is due in 2020 but I am working to bring it forward as it seems to me that this is an important piece of work. I hope this statement of intent is an indication of the importance I place on this issue 
Kind regards
Senator Ian Gorst
Chief Minister of Jersey"

You'll note that this response does not go quite as far as to overtly say that the statement "relative low income is reducing" is false, and it certainly isn't an apology for misleading the States/ public. I have responded to the Chief Minister asking for clarification on that specific point and we will see if he will apologise.

But what I find disturbing in this response (and the other responses given in the States) is that he is determined to pursue a narrative on their performance in government which is so flawed that you have to either question their honesty or credibility (or both).

They are attempting to make three claims -

  1. The economy is improving
  2. They have reduced the tax burden on low earners
  3. They are helping the poor by investing in health and education
Each of these can be demonstrated to be fatuous. So let's go through them.

1. The economy is improving

No it is not.

The Council of Minister claim that 5% growth in 2014 and 2.2% growth in 2015 is a sign that the economy is improving.

On the face of it, it appears to be good news, but only if you have no understand of economics and choose not to dig a little deeper into these stats.

In 2014, most of Jersey's industries did not grow, and the over all figure of 5% growth was driven by growth in the finance industry. The government's own Fiscal Policy Panel told them that this growth was not part of a trend of growth, but was due to several large firms in the Island undertaking one-off restructures which changed the numbers on paper and made the productivity figures for the sector look greater than it actually was.

In 2015, many of Jersey's industries did grow, but finance shrank! Basically the opposite of the year before.

There is no positive trend to take out of this and there is no evidence that we are facing sustained periods of growth which can be relied upon to see Islander's standard of living going up.

The government also claim that employment is at a record high.

Well, yes, this is true. We do have a record number of people in work... because we have a record high population!

In actual fact, the absolute number of unemployed in Jersey has only gone down by 140 in this term of office. The vast majority of new jobs have gone to people arriving into the Island. This is a ponzi scheme.

It is also a fact that half of the new jobs created have been zero-hours contracts, which will do little to help those working in those jobs out of poverty.

2. They have reduced the tax burden on low earners

Again, false and here is the evidence -

This is taken from the Oxera report on the changes to Jersey's tax system over the last decade.

For the lowest earners in every household type examined, tax went up.

The report even finally admits that GST is a regressive tax which disproportionately affects the poorest Islanders.

The government also introduced the LTC charge, which is regressive also.

There isn't much more to be said on it. It is just a simple lie to say that low earners have been protected by the Council of Minister's tax policies. They just haven't and the independent report shows it.

3. They are helping the poor by investing in health and education

This is a bit of a bizarre one.

How does a healthy working age adult who lives in relative low income benefit from a better health and education service? They don't. They might if they get sick, but just because you are poor doesn't mean you aren't naturally healthy.

But in any event, poverty is not measured by your access to public services. It is measured by the money you have to live off. A better funded education or health service does not put more money in your pocket.

In fact, in Jersey's case the opposite is true. because of how the government has chosen to fund it's "investment" (in inverted commas because it doesn't really exist, but I'll let that one slide for this blog!).

The government is funding extra spending in those areas by cutting the Social Security budget by £10m.

They have chosen to cut the Income Support disregards for disability benefits and pension income, as well as abolishing the Single Parent component of Income Support.

I have met people who already live in poverty who have seen their incomes drop by £600 per year as a result of these cuts.

The Single Parent component was £40 a week, so that cut will see some families (56% of whom already live in relative low income) £2,080 a year worse off.

The policies of the Council of Minister quite clearly are going to have the inevitable impact of pushing more people into poverty and making inequality in Jersey even worse.

Despite all their bluster and slogans, the fact is that the government has chosen this week to lie to the public to hide the disgraceful impact their policies are having on the poorest people in Jersey.

The public deserve so much better than this.


  1. Thank you for all you do

  2. Have the council of ministers become so introvert or are they that thick that they think they can lie to the public when there is so much information readily available in the public domain.

    Bailiwick Express Sept. 2016 one paragraph.

    “We were alarmed by the growing gap in income inequality, noting that the average disposable income of the poorest section of the community had actually decreased by 17% over a five-year period.


    1. I think it depends on which Minister you speak to.

      There are definitely some who know that they need to construct a particular narrative to ensure that they can continue in power, and speaking the truth is irrelevant to pursuing that aim. They repeat the same mantra over and over again ("the economy is growing", "poverty is reducing", "we're investing in education and health") hoping that it will stick and people just assume it is true.

      Those ministers - Gorst, Ozouf, Routier etc - know that none of this is true. It's just what they have to say Tom get their narrative enshrined in people's minds.

      Other ministers - Pryke, Farnham etc - just believe what they're told and can't understand why anybody wouldn't agree with them.

      So it's a combination of thick and introvert.

    2. And they will stay in power.

    3. I don't think so.

      Nothing lasts forever.

      2018 will see a lot change in Jersey politics.

    4. Indeed, like you'll be renaming your party again.

    5. Nope. No plans to change any time soon.

  3. My latest appearance on the BBC 'Hot Seat' programme -


  4. Thank you for researching this Sam. The shape of the world is the same; politicians on the right of centre are clearly trying to justify that they do not care about income inequality. The care only for themselves and the collective protectorate or they would shape tax policy in a way and make decisions on innovation and re-employment that suit the workforce across the board.

  5. You may mean well but nothing ever changes because the same faces keep on standing.
    If we had decent left wing people standing, and not the serial standees with the serial manifesto that's gets nowhere because of the serial fall outs within the Assembly then there could be hope (he says with bated breath).

    1. We will have a host of first-time candidates at the next election. It won't be for a few months until they start becoming public though. They have jobs and lives they need to prioritise before getting into election mode.

  6. Where does Reform Jersey stand against this Jersey Action Group Party?

    1. We don't stand against them.

      We worked with them under their previous name on other campaigns and we might again.

    2. Sean Power is Right Wing so some RJ Policies will never be agreed upon.

    3. We agreed on People's Park and the IFC.

  7. Do you support Labours' BREXIT plans?

    1. From what I have seen of them, yes.

      Guaranteeing EU citizens rights on day one is absolutely the right thing to do and I want Jersey to follow that example.

      Continuing access to the single market and customs union is important for protecting the economy, plus ending freedom of movement to protect parts of the country struggling with strained infrastructure.

      All sounds good to me so far. I haven't read the small print though so will want to check if there is any reference to the Crown Dependencies.

    2. Just listening to Keir Starmer's speech from this morning and he overtly said he wants to secure passporting rights for the financial services industry. Excellent news

    3. Labour haven't got a hope.

  8. Sam.

    Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry announces date of report PUBLICATION.

  9. Sam.

    Public to Discover how much "openness" £50k can BUY?

  10. I'm fake am I, come and say that to my face you scabby little Cunt and you'll never bad mouth me again.

  11. Sam, somebody on the VFC blog has asked whether you can confirm Stuart Syvret's legal reasons for refusing to give evidence to the COI are legally sound.
    Can you?

    'Anonymous 11 May 2017 at 07:05

    Sam Mezec has a Degree in Law.
    VFC can you ask him for his opinion on all these legal claims against the COI?'

    1. Sorry, I've been quite busy over the last few days and haven't caught Stuart's comments. Could you postnwhich ones you're referring to?

      At the end of the day, Stuart is perfectly legally entitled to refuse to give evidence if he didn't want to.

  12. Absent again.

    1. I am not absent, I am excused as I am away on States business.

      And what do you mean "again?" My attendance at the Assembly is excellent.