Change usually bad
I DIDN'T think Nick Mann's article about Kevin Stewart and Project Proteus, published on 28 January, was up to his normal standard. While the drawing of Deputy Stewart with a pair of pants on his head was insulting (to the deputy or to pants?) and may provoke some debate on whether the minister wants to officially register this image for himself, I primarily take issue with Nick's claim that the public has an appetite for change.
This is a baseless myth being hyped by the media and repeatedly perpetuated by the brainwashed and those who want knighthoods. Anyone capable of original thought or efficient memory can see that 'change' is usually to the detriment of the masses and beneficial to the elite and their political and corporate lackeys. It almost always results in more central control (power in fewer hands), foreign and private ownership of utilities and loss of national identity and sovereignty. One such change means that now, when Mrs Brouard in Torteval calls Mrs Le Poidevin in the Forest for a gossip about the girl Duquemin from Castel, who, according to Mrs Le Page from St Saviour's, is seeing the boy Le Tissier from St Peter's, someone in Bahrain makes a profit.
Let's have some respect for our history and traditions. Our ancestors weren't idiots. Democratic systems, which have operated perfectly well for decades (and in the case of common law, centuries), are being dismantled unnecessarily because of so-called incompetence or surrender to the global community without public consent. 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' is rightly a regular cry from the man on the street. The failings of the States are, in the main, down to incompetence or deliberate sabotage and have little to do with fundamentally flawed systems.
As for Project Proteus, can you see where the job creation will come from? While many of us view Minister Stewart's work as honest and enthusiastic, I fear he could be about to expose the C&E board to the same allegation of being 'all commerce and no employment' to which its two predecessors were subjected.
Technology, in the main, reduces the number of jobs available in the long term. It may put a few more pounds in the coffers of some businesses, which may or not be locally owned, but will that benefit the Guernseyman? I await substantiation of the argument that 'without Project Proteus, existing businesses will leave'.
In addition, there are always health and safety concerns with new technology, which are sometimes justified. They have no track record of safety. With metal in our teeth and with our brains and nervous systems working by electricity, is it such a clever idea to put ourselves in a cyber matrix and place electrical devices on our ears and in front of our eyes on such a regular basis? Is it really such a coincidence that mental disorders have increased since the advent of the PC and the mobile phone?
Also, the more we rely on electrical devices, the more we depend on foreign suppliers for our electricity, so the more they will charge us.
MATT WATERMAN,
Flat 2,
3, Burnt Lane,
St Peter Port,
GY1 1HL.
