Shift political debate away from personalities and towards policies

Deputies in office vigorously defend their independence of political thought. Every one of them believes they have all the answers, or knows where to find them; they stood for election on that basis. This explains their lack of enthusiasm for political parties, and it also explains why the States lacks any consistency, discipline or direction of travel. So it is hardly surprising that Deputy Roffey ‘is not sure what this Assembly stands for’ (Building a toxic legacy? 4 May). If he doesn’t know, then what chance have the rest of us?

The rest of us have no chance at all. When we vote we are now required to choose from over 100 diverse ‘manifestos’ which generally comprise a mix of meaningless platitudes and personal statements. An election offers the electorate no possibility of voting for the kind of Assembly they want, because there is no clearly articulated policy agenda that binds any two or more deputies together. So what we end up with is Deputy Roffey’s ‘soup of political philosophies’, which pleases no-one.

The absence of political parties is why there is no transparent process by which policy is formulated, and is why deputies are unlikely to embrace Andy Sloan’s idea of an independent policy development resource (No trust in the process, 25 May). It explains why, in Deputy Roffey’s words, the ‘newbies… start to struggle to deliver’, and why ‘it is so hard to implement a cohesive set of policies’.

No doubt various groups of deputies get together behind the scenes to discuss policy, but such a lack of transparency is understandably interpreted as ‘tribalism’. Deputy Soulsby berates tribalism (End the division, 12 May), but if she wishes to present a coherent counter-argument to P&R, let alone call for resignations, she will need the support of a tribe of her own.

Perhaps she has formed one, and the 11 spoilt papers in her recent re-election to The Ladies’ College board of governors represents an opposing tribe; we, the general public, have no way of knowing. It just looks like ‘toxic personality politics’ as Deputy St Pier puts it.

Deputy Soulsby also pleads for leadership, and leadership requires authority – i.e. the legitimate exercise of power. But Deputy Roffey prefers ‘our current system where every member is part of the executive’; with no party structure to organise deputies, none of them wants to confer greater power onto one of their colleagues and so diminish their own.

The absence of political parties also explains why the only regular voice in opposition comes across as trying to settle scores. It is why political comment columns tend to cause offence by focusing on personalities, leading to Deputy Aldwell’s extraordinary advice that women should not stand for election (Letters, 12 May). It is why lobbying groups such as Gpeg have no clear point of contact with policymakers.

Richard Digard is right – Guernsey’s political system does not work. Indeed, Guernsey’s electoral system does not work, and ‘consensus government’ does not work. Consensus means ‘agreement or concurrence within a group of people’, but this is proven to be unachievable in the States, because it is always divided. In fact with no political parties, it is divided 38 different ways. This explains why it has failed to deliver decisive outcomes on transport, education, taxation, and a host of other key social issues for a number of years, and it explains the lack of accountability for its failings.

It goes without saying that no democratic system of government is perfect, and a party political system is no exception. But we have the brains and experience in the island to design something sensible and workable that will shift political debate away from personalities and towards policies.

When even one of our senior politicians declares that without change, ‘we really will deserve to be called the worst States ever’, it is clear that the time for urgent reforms has arrived.

Nigel P de la Rue

Crosstrees

Ville Baudu

Vale