A LETTER published here yesterday went into detail as to why next week’s election really is all about the economy and explained in clear terms the benefits that ‘finance’ brings to this island and its people.
The reason – and it also explains why the Guernsey International Business Association took out a series of punchy adverts and put on a seminar for prospective deputies – is that while the sector is taken for granted, it is not fully understood.
Indeed, there is nervousness that some candidates are actively hostile to it and are suggesting that the island would actually benefit from a recession or a lessening of the size of the industry.
It prompted one sitting deputy to tell this newspaper over the weekend that the election was being fought on deception and deceit and that voters were in danger of being misled over zero-10 and the degree to which it could be modified in future.
Islanders are generally small ‘c’ conservative in their voting habits and do not favour wholesale changes, especially when the consequences are not especially clear. It is also apparent, however, from a couple of key States decisions over the last few months, that there is a split in opinion over the need for and benefit of, especially, population growth as required to fuel any expansion of finance and to try to minimise the grey hole.
Some of that is filtering through on doorsteps and what has been said will doubtless remain in the minds of those who are successful next Wednesday and influence future policy.
It is a potentially worrying prospect, for whatever the downsides the financial services sector may have, it really is the only act in town with no replacement in sight.
If this election is about the economy, then the outcome should be clear-cut. If, however, it is based on people’s attitude to, rather than knowledge of, zero-10, then the future is in far more doubt.
Should islanders wish to have a significantly reduced dependency on finance and the consequences of that, then that’s democracy.
Has there been a sufficiently detailed debate on the point? Absolutely not.
When the new House sits, it will have to get to grips with all manner of unfinished business and tinkering with Guernsey’s economic foundations is not something to be rushed into.
One Article Comment
I cannot see how the wealthy utopia that we are being promised will happen without a population explosion. We already need 700 people to fill vacancies, and presumably the ‘rush’ hasn’t started yet. Will these people be local, if not will they be better paid than if they were local? And how measurable is the distortion of non locals being able to out-purchase locals?
It’s clear that public expenditure is being reduced in real terms, what amount of growth is needed to start proper reinvestment into our schools and our people? The finance industry’s profits will rise on and on now they pay less tax, the only benefits will be to the bonus pots and the shareholders of the parent companies. Who are most likely abroad. It is not the message that we NEED the industry here, of course we do, it’s how the public are being treated by a handful of interested parties who know they are going to benefit well, whilst most of the population wait for the supposed ‘trickle down’.
However way you slice this something will give. Either population control will be deregulated or business will have to be turned away. And Finance will never allow that.
Without progressive taxation for the higher earners from this lucrative and morally dubious trade the public will smell a rat in every utterance of appeasement to the fat cats.
Without some direct input from the multimillion earning companies into the community they will always be suspected of taking advantage. The message from Finance should be one of reconciliation to the people of Guernsey who have welcomed them here to make big profits, not criticising them for being wary.
Globally Finance is a PR mess. Guernsey is no different. The swagger of the rich non-locals makes the Guerns wonder what beast they have let in.