Andy Sloan: On the right track?

So, let’s do it. Let’s change Guernsey for the better. Together.

So says the it's not a political party (yet), it's a movement, Future Guernsey, on its new website. It’s an interesting sentiment, worthy perhaps of a bit of a ponder. The precise wording implies (to me) that there’s a sense of schism in Guernsey today, a fundamental malaise at the heart of our society, and that Guernsey is in desperate need of change. My immediate thoughts coming across this were: ‘Is there and does it?’

Well, I agree that Guernsey’s on the wrong track. Just over six months ago, I wrote the following: ‘Are things on the right track? The litmus test question of American political pollsters. In recent weeks and months, most of the chewing-the-cud conversations I have had with friends, colleagues and acquaintances have centred on the fact that things feel anything but. Sloan’s Law, my personal favourite obviously, is that things can be unsustainable for a very, very long time, and my sense is that there’s a consensus out there that things need to change.’ And over the last couple of years, I’ve lamented the state of our economy and the scale of public spending and bemoaned a lack of accountability and integrity in our politics, so it would be churlish of me to suggest that I don’t agree with Future Guernsey’s premise. But I don’t quite equate my ‘we’re on the wrong track’ mindset with the more ‘malaise in society’ connotations that the phrase ‘let’s change Guernsey for the better’ has for me.

Perhaps I’m over-thinking it. After all, it’s just a marketing tagline. Designed to be agreed with. It’s OK as these things go, but ‘Labour isn’t working’ it is not.

After being called out on social media for being too quick to be cynical over the launch of Future Guernsey, this month I’m going to try very hard to keep misanthropic me in his box, give ‘policy not personality’ a fair crack of the whip, and offer up a policy thought, or two, for the new party, sorry movement (I’m trying, honest), to chew on.

In early summer, I found myself agreeing publicly with Future Guernsey's party leader, sorry political adviser (I really must try a lot harder), in these pages. I said quite openly that I share Gavin St Pier’s view that the culture of the States is broken. And today I find myself again agreeing publicly with Future Guernsey’s premise and also with its assessment that it’s not good enough for candidates to get elected and then begin a crash course in understanding policy and policy development in situ. Such a route is car crash politics.

So far, so good. I obviously agree with the central tenet of Future Guernsey, that some things are broken and need fixing, and that good pre-prepared policy is part of the answer. But what of its policy diagnosis? Am I going to discover Future Guernsey is like Marx – good on description, weak on prescription?

Unfortunately, it’s too early to tell. Right now, the website is just a sea of marketing motherhood and apple pie. Echoes of the old Dandelion Project, methinks. ‘Our vision is for an island that is a welcoming, optimistic place with widespread prosperity.’ Why not? ‘We believe in a bright future for Guernsey that works for current and future islanders.’ Who doesn’t? Frankly, on this basis, Future Guernsey is just a small step from standing on a platform of wishing for world peace.

The list of chosen policy priorities seems unlikely to generate much dissent: housing, health, the climate, education, fiscal sustainability, and the economy. Though personally, I might add transport. Developing policy priorities is the easy bit. Policy solutions are likely a bit more tricky, particularly trying to fashion an agreed consensus from a group of people who have just come together. So, in the spirit of working together, here’s a couple of issues that I think Future Guernsey’s policies will need to address or resolve.

Out of the gate, we have GST. That’s not one to be dodged I’m afraid. It’s a clear yes or no, but given Gavin St Pier proposed the tax when he was Chief Minister, I can’t see it being anything other than a pour.

The central question that those developing Future Guernsey’s policies need to ask themselves is whether they really appreciate the economic environment which presently exists. Policy choices are constrained by it. I didn’t go to the launch; I was at another presentation that evening at St Pierre Park, one given by Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, hosted by my good friend Raymond Ashton, launching his book, Ashton on Company Law. I imagine ours was a more dour affair. Paul’s central prognosis was that things are a bit crap. In fact, his most memorable point was pointing out that things haven’t been this bad, in terms of income growth, since the Napoleonic Wars! His was a superb, if downbeat, presentation with little room for the optimism that I imagine was being whipped up down the road at the Performing Arts Centre. Lower growth, higher taxes, higher interest rates, increased borrowing, greater spending on health, debt interest payments, and the need to run a primary surplus all point to another miserable 10 to 15 years for the UK. I couldn’t see any silver linings.

And that’s a shame because our prospects are pretty much linked to the UK’s. With the year ending, output is falling and inflation in the UK is on the rise, immediate prospects are poor. Starmagflation anyone?

Although I’ve said it many times, what really struck me was how much our economic issues are a microcosm of those of the UK. Deficits, slow growth, and rising health spending – in the UK, health spending has doubled as a share of government spending since 1979. As Paul pointed out, this has begun to crowd out spending on everything else. Is this sustainable? I can’t see it myself, something has to give. It’s the same story here. Though we measure it differently, we’re spending more as a share of public spending on health, around a third as the States records it, and its growth shows no sign of stopping. When I produced the long-term projections for health spending arising from changing demographics when I was States economist (yes, I know I harp on about this) back in 2012, it was to make the point that the projections weren’t sustainable. That we wouldn’t be able to afford it. That something would need to be done. How much more can we spend on health? The question is: to what end is this inexorable growth in spending?

When I came to Guernsey, our life expectancy was in the top 10 in the world. It still is.

Almost more so than GST, I venture that that is the policy issue Future Guernsey really needs to address in its manifesto. It’s the real elephant in the room. Let’s see if the appetite is there.

I’d have liked to see Future Guernsey launch with a set of policies. It seemed logical to me. But that wasn’t the route chosen. The website states that ‘Policy is nothing without delivery and that’s why we have formed a dedicated working group solely focused on ensuring we have the capacity and capability to deliver the policies and changes required. This group is drawn from local experts in legislation, public service, and business management.’ That’s lawyers, civil servants, and finance sector types in old money.

It doesn’t quite explain where the policy expertise is coming from. It’s all right asking a group of well-meaning white-collar professionals from various walks of life, to come together, but asking them to develop policy in a few months around complex issues is a tall order. Not least for some of the more tricky issues. Listening to the GP podcast the next day and hearing the explanation of the types Future Guernsey wants to attract, it seems the most important characteristic was ‘team player’ (or an ability to vote the party line?). It was expressly said that mavericks were not required, that’s a shame (presumably only enough room for one), as it’s those types that catalyse innovative thinking and policy-making.

I think it’s important for Future Guernsey to state publicly the principles and beliefs that will drive its policy development. ‘We can do better than that lot because we’re better and more professional’ as a primary motivation isn’t enough for me. I understand the project, but I think binding values need to be stronger than that. And while happiness is an important value, it’s just one, there have to be others, and on its own as an objective, for policy-making it implies a rather conceptual utilitarian view and gives me no inkling to the philosophical bent of its likely policies.

The central rationale behind any political party, in a generic sense, is to organise and mobilise collective action to achieve power and implement a specific vision of governance and society. Sorry to get all academic – my point might be easier to understand by quoting Dwight D Eisenhower: ‘If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.’ Much easier to follow.

Let’s hope there’s more to Future Guernsey than that.