P&R balancing ambition with caution

Deputy Heidi Soulsby, who is leading on the plan, has already told the States that it’s proving to work well. What became clear yesterday, though, as P&R presented to the Scrutiny Panel, is that this plan is some distance away from being fully embraced by 40 States members as a way to direct its work for the next four years.

The mood appeared quite adversarial – the Scrutiny panel asking P&R about its plan and its actions, while P&R members continued to try to drag the wider States into things.

Is the plan too ambitious, Scrutiny Committee president Yvonne Burford asked in early exchanges.

It’s what the States has directed us to do, was the response from P&R, seemingly torn about whether it would be a good move to admit that the plan could still be reduced ‘to focus on what really, really matters’ and to ‘achieve the most important things’.

But it was one of her earliest responses yesterday which brought thoughts around to ambition.

To paraphrase, the States takes too much time to get things perfect, Deputy Soulsby said. Would it be better for government to accept the 80/20 rule?

Also known as the Pareto Principle, it’s a concept which suggests that two of 10 items on a to-do list will turn out to be worth the other eight items put together, and that most people procrastinate on the big issues and busy themselves with the 80% of trivia contributing little to their success. Meanwhile, 80% of positive government outcomes could come from that top 20% of actions.

True for the States? The difficulty that P&R faces, and has experienced this week, both under the Scrutiny microscope and the mixed public response to plans to build more, much-needed houses on States land, is it seems it cannot afford to be less than perfect in its judgements and approach.

As P&R wrestles again with priorities, it will also be trying to balance caution with ambition.