At least the media of the day termed my proposals an ‘alternative Budget’, but they weren’t really. They just sought to replace the entire section dealing with taxation. A very important chunk of any Budget, sure, but hardly the whole shooting match. Likewise, the States isn’t really faced with two ‘Budgets’ now. Just two different proposals on committee revenue allocations.
Some have described that move as disappointing, even farcical. I disagree. It’s eminently sensible. Think about it. P&R has been trying to understand, and respond to, an assembly sending out very mixed messages. In the chamber they’re almost united in calling for spending reductions. But back in their committees they resemble gannets more than the public spending hawks we see on States days.
So P&R is simply asking: ‘What’s your true position?’
The approach is if you really mean what you’ve been saying in debate, really support the spending reductions you’ve voted for, here’s your opportunity to give that confirmation. Vote for Option A and the States will have doubled down on its commitment to reduce real terms expenditure.
But don’t come running to us if the committees you sit on don’t see how to make ends meet. After all it’s at committee level that any real savings must be made.
On the other hand, what if all of the talk and votes in favour of reducing States spending was just virtue signalling? If, when faced with the reality of providing key public services, you believe your committees can’t afford to reduce their budgets, then it’s far better for P&R to offer you a coherent alternative set of committee allocations, than the Budget debate descending into farce by facing a shedload of amendments from Home, HSC, ESC, and all of the rest, each seeking individual budget uplifts.
That would create a dog’s breakfast of a debate, ensuring none of the other important aspects of the report were even considered properly.
It makes perfect sense to force the Assembly into making that clear choice, but it was never a cliffhanger. I could have told you on day one what the result would be. It was always going to be to roll back from the previous resolution to reduce revenue spending in real terms.
After all P&R will have met with all of the principal committees in the run-up to the Budget, and gained much insight into members’ views.
If they really thought a majority would approve committee limits in line with the approved resolution calling for a 1% real terms reduction in public spending, then that’s the only option they would be proposing. Clearly that wasn’t the zeitgeist they picked up.
And the responses of committee presidents to my question on how they will personally vote on the choice of spending proposals suggest that P&R’s political antenna wasn’t faulty.
You need to be logged in to comment.