IOD Debate
Guernsey's demographic time bomb
The IOD debate was a fascinating evening
with a lovely spread and heated debate; especially the question and answer
section. The debate was on Guernsey’s demographic time bomb but before that we
had three guest speakers: James Sproule, Tim Harford and Chris Brock.
James Sproule talked through his
predictions for this year, next year and how he got 4 out of his 5 predictions
right. Afterwards, Tim Halford discussed stories of the economists who were: John
Maynard Keynes who ended up rich and Irving Fisher who ended up almost broke! Despite
both being successful it all hinged on one thing, admitting they got it wrong
after the Wall Street Crash. Most people favoured Keynes, leading to the
deterioration of Fisher’s reputation as an economist. Chris Brock then provided
us with some statistics to mull over whilst we ate dinner.
After dinner the debate started with an
enthusiastic Sarah Montague grilling the panelists: Mel Carvill, Wendy Dorman,
Deputy Le Tocq, Geoff Miller and Jane St Pier. Each of the panelists were offering different points
of view depending on the questions that were being asked. Wendy Dorman asserted
very interesting and helpful opinions, she was also sympathetic, as Jersey has tried
to allow more people on the island to combat the issue of a growing dependency
ratio. Jane St Pier who is the Chair at the Youth Commission was able to give
an alternative opinion, as she was giving an opinion from the youth standpoint. These two panelists were very enjoyable to
listen to as they gave accounts from two different sections of society. However,
the other panelists were able to offer some very intriguing views too, as Mel
Carvill could give an insight into a English perspective, acknowledging
Guernsey is on a much smaller scale. Additionally, Geoff Miller and John Le Tocq gave
a view from the perspective of a States member and from a Chairman of holdings
and real estate firms. This was engrossing
as Deputy Le Tocq was concerned with what was best for the whole island.
Sarah Montague was a great moderator, as
she tried to rattle the panelists and gain controversial answers, but many of
the panelists kept their cool and gave composed responses despite her best
efforts. However, there was one question that lead to some controversy: which was ‘what should the ideal population in
Guernsey be?’ This led to Deputy Le Tocq being requested to answer the same
question several times. Although many of
the panelists were reluctant to give an answer to this, there was a general
consensus that they were relaxed by a 10 to 15 thousand population
increase. Undeniably the high point of the
evening was when Sarah went into the audience during questioning, from there we heard some sly digs but many questions that were
asked warranted a response even if they were negative. On the other hand there were
some positive observations made by a French hedge fund manager: he stated that he
liked the island and remarked upon the ease of his move here, which was good to
hear. Many of the questions were
concerned with whom should we let in? How
are we going to attract these people? What
are we doing to allow them to live here (licensing)? As well as questions about pensions.
My overall opinion of these topics varies,
insofar as I can see we need to bring in young tax paying workers who will
decrease the dependency ratio, however, it could possibly ruin the community
feel that we enjoy here. Despite this it would seem that we aren’t doing enough
to attract these new people, as licenses aren’t long enough for those people to
settle and make a life here. By the
time licensees have settled they have to leave again, leading to disruption in
both their lives and children’s as well. Predominantly many jobs are within the
finance sector despite many of the youth now wanting work in design and
computing. Therefore in order to attract
the youth we need more companies and jobs to be available in this particular sector;
thereby allowing the dependency ratio to decrease. Without doubt the pension scheme we have in Guernsey
is definitely not sufficient, as the cost of living is so high, so many people
do need have a secondary pensions.
Inaccurate forecasts and mismanagement by older generations have played
their part. Consequently, we as the
youth have been left with burden of clearing up past mistakes, which is unfair.
Ultimately, we will miss out on
pensions, we will have to work for longer and we will possibly have to pay
taxes to cover the cost of other generations. This is unjustifiable, we should not be left
with this but we are! The directors of today have left a lot for the directors
of tomorrow to do!