Work-shy or subservient? Time will tell...

LISTENING to the States department/committee elections on Friday was rather spooky.

I'd naively assumed that having sought election, all our deputies would be champing at the bit to get to work forming policy and delivering public services.

Not a bit of it.

Of the 10 departments only two saw contested elections. Frankly, it was hard to avoid the conclusion that some members of the new States are either:

1. Work-shy to a worrying degree, or

2. So subservient and unwilling to challenge the choices of ministers they make the Stepford wives look like feisty troublemakers.

Either way, it's deeply disappointing.

Even more worrying were the repeated suggestions from ministers that they had consulted their chief officers over the choice of departmental team and asked them who they felt they would like to work with.

Have they learned nothing from the Education debacle? Have they not read the Harwood Report, which stressed the need for politicians to be solely responsible for policy and for the civil servants to be responsible for operational issues?

Of course no one wants disruptive and destructive elements on boards, but neither should they be cosy places without any disagreements or challenging debate.

The same is true of the floor of the States. To the outsider the message from Friday's proceedings was that this could be a hugely subservient assembly, which tamely takes its lead from the top bench. I sincerely hope that's wrong.

I've been the first to call for our new government to cut out the bickering and personalities and start working together. But a pendulum can swing too far. Stopping squabbling is good, but passive kow-towing is not.

Certainly for the next four years, no deputy (with a couple of exceptions) can complain they haven't got enough work to do. It's their fault, because they chose not to seek election to departments. Likewise no minister can complain they haven't got a supportive board, because they've all been hand-picked.

Another interesting feature was the failure of the former chief minister to seek any posts at all. I know he had said that if he couldn't keep his old job then he would be a backbencher, but had assumed he meant that he didn't want a leadership role as a minister/chairman. To avoid any job at all smacks of sulking.

Then there were the repeated attempts of Deputy Mary Lowe to gain committee seats. Three stabs and three defeats, on top of her meagre five votes for SSD minister, makes her seem rather like a persona non grata.

Maybe her long service, traditionally seen as a positive, could actually be viewed as a handicap in an era where change is regarded as good and political history is deemed 'harmful baggage'.

In the run-up to these elections one new deputy sent an email expressing surprise that some members were seeking seats on two departments. He felt this would be too great a burden of work.

Stuff and nonsense. Serving as an ordinary member of two departmental committees shouldn't even have a deputy breaking sweat – particularly those who are in politics on a full-time basis. And serving on two very different boards provides a broader and better perspective of government.

What it does mean is that other members lose out. That's why we should have fewer deputies, so they can all have a proper and diverse workload.

Anyway, those who haven't had the gumption to challenge ministerial choices can't complain about being cold-shouldered.

So have we elected a lazy States or a timid and meekly obedient one?

Time will tell.