I've met him several times via a business interest he shares with the father of someone one of my brothers knows quite well (how convoluted can you get?). He's nice enough, but I'm annoyed with him for abolishing prescription charges.
By doing so he has made an issue out of something that (to my knowledge) didn't bother a lot of people. If prescription charges were £6.85 per item (as they are in the UK), then they would have bothered/inconvenienced a lot of people, but they were only £2.10 per item.
If you want an analogy, then the poll tax fiasco in the UK is a good one. The system of local taxation (property based 'rates') that preceded the poll tax wasn't liked by those who had to pay and wasn't particularly fair (as in no clear link between having a large house and consuming more locally provided/funded services), but it was tolerated. By introducing the poll tax, the then govt. created a political controversy when there was no need to, and the issue of local taxation in the UK has been hot politics ever since.
Consequently, he has given away £2.5 million without ever being able to get it back (reintroducing charges would be political suicide - see previous paragraph), which is daft given the fact that most people want to States to either spend less money and/or spend it more efficiently. £2.5 million could do a lot of good if it was spent/allocated properly (that is dozens of extra staff that could be employed [or dozens of staff that could be dismissed...]), but he has gifted this away when there was no need to. I'm sure that there exists people for whom the costs of multiple prescription charges were/are a incovenience, but there must be a better way of resolving that problem. I could easily afford the charges (which were £4.20 per month on my 'regime'), so I see no reason why I shouldn't continue to pay them.
Everything associated with the abolition of prescription charges smacks of political/economic stupidity to me.