Chief optimist

THE role of Scrutiny has come under scrutiny itself over the last couple of weeks.

Stepping down from the committee, my former Vale colleague, Deputy Mary Lowe, suggested that no member of it should also be serving on a States department.

This is wrong on so many levels.

Firstly, this committee, whose task is to improve government by examining current policy and practice, absolutely needs members experienced in departmental policy-making. These are exactly the people who can ask the telling, insightful questions that get right to the heart of the issues under consideration.

The last thing Scrutiny needs is a bunch of naive or inexperienced members, ill equipped to hold departments to account.

The worst of all worlds would be if it were made up of those who had failed to secure positions on departmental committees. That might suit those being scrutinised, but that isn't the purpose of the exercise, which is to get better government for the public of Guernsey?

The island's Scrutiny Committee is nothing like a UK select committee or a Jersey scrutiny committee, which both operate in executive systems where all the real power lies with a cabinet.

There are no 'back-benchers' in Guernsey. All States members are expected to share executive power and responsibility. If Scrutiny members were made an exception, it would be the start of executive government by stealth. States members would begin to be split into the executive (who make policy) and scrutineers (who just question it). Would this lead to more disciplined and focused government, all about policy and not about personalities?

Take a look at Jersey.

Of course the present system means Scrutiny members are sometimes 'conflicted'.

No problem – that's exactly why the committee has nine members.

Aristotle's theory of the mean can be crudely summed up by the maxim 'moderation in all things'.

The great philosopher didn't just mean that I should cut back on the red wine, but that all human qualities, such as generosity, aggression or optimism, were fine in their right proportion but bad in deficit or excess.

What has all this philosophising got to do with the price of fish – or your next tax bill? Quite a lot, because sound political judgement relies on an appropriate degree of positive thinking.

Too much negativity and politicians sound like Private Frazer – 'We're all doomed' – as do many contributors to internet discussions and radio phone-ins.

Not only is this depressing but it's damaging, as it undermines confidence and leads to paralysis.

Even worse is for politicians to display blind or reckless optimism. Plan on the basis that all things will turn out for the best and you will find that your vision of nirvana is wrecked by 'events, dear boy'.

Of course I am referring again to the stark disagreement between the Chief Minister and Treasury and Resources over the size of future budget deficits. Leaving aside the personal differences, the important question is: who is right?

This newspaper made it clear where it stood in an editorial virtually accusing the T&R minister of hyping up the bad news because he was always against zero-10.

As a strong, albeit reluctant, supporter of that policy I'm not so sure. True, he's unlikely to downplay the problems, but then nor should he if he's a prudent chancellor.

On the other hand, Chief Minister Lyndon Trott seems to be showing an almost worrying degree of optimism. The Rothschild projections may be very conservative but even if the annual deficit turns out to be £35m., not £65m., the mindset should still be to act decisively to fill it. There's no room for complacency. Some differences in the two men's estimates of future shortfalls are technical. T&R has wilfully misinterpreted the Government Business Plan's limit of £20m. per year on capital spending as meaning just for new projects. It was definitely for total capital expenditure, however this was always an utterly unrealistic limit, as I tried to convince the previous House.

Deputy Trott frequently refers to the fact that he is an optimist. It's not a new characteristic. I remember him urging a colleague not to make too many concessions to Jersey over fishing licences, because he felt sure we could beat them in court if necessary. Alas, we lost and had to negotiate from a position of weakness.

I'm glad Deputy Trott is not a doom-laden Private Frazer but I pray we are not being led by a Mr Micawber either, relying on 'something turning up'. Remember 'events, dear boy, events' and plan prudently.