You might get what you vote for

As much as nobody apart from, briefly, Deputy Heidi Soulsby really wanted to talk about toxic politics, the message got through that compassion in public service is more than just fluffy stuff, and a bit more of it locally wouldn’t be a bad thing.

There was some bemoaning the loss of parish politics through island-wide voting and also, though the point was largely glossed over, a clear indication that the 'new' politics experienced since 2020 (though an argument is put forward that it started in the 16-20 Assembly) is a symptom of IWV.

With the loss of face-to-face doorstep connections at election time, electors faced a choice of the same old, same old, or inexperienced, tough-talking, new-style candidates who wanted to grab the States by the scruff of the neck. They chose the latter, and found themselves voting, not only for change, but as was said on the evening, unknowingly for some ‘disruptive behaviours’.

Now apparently we have too many politicians who don’t understand the system, haven’t grown up in the ways of the douzaine, and need more ‘training’ in politics. It’s surely disappointing that one solution put forward for unwanted political behaviours amounts to little more than ‘some training’.

Deputy Soulsby, correctly, says that one shouldn’t need training to understand what bad behaviour is.

She says that ‘peer pressure’ should be brought to bear to change behaviours, and ultimately change the politics.

It may seem unfortunate, but it’s highly probable things won’t change much between now and the next election.

But maybe if you can’t train the candidate, events such as this might show how it is possible to train the voter to know what to look for.