Answering the implicit questions
IN A debate which has been much-derided (even in these pages today by a political colleague) the States’ decision to pursue the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s Latimer House Principles can come across as almost a cry for help.
It could be argued that this was also a land and facilities grab, with self-interest foremost in debate, just couched in a way to clarify the value of the representative to the voter.
Were deputies really attributing their many perceived failings to a lack of support? ‘If only I had an office / a nicer chair / secretarial support / a researcher, then I could do a much better job for the electorate.’
Or was it a plea to be taken seriously? ‘Without the above requirements, I’m trying to do my best to represent you, but it feels like I’ve got one arm tied behind my back.’
Maybe, in their plea for more space and facilities, deputies were effectively saying: ‘Give us the tools to do the job properly, or frankly, why are we here at all, in this Heath Robinson government?’
So members voted to pursue the establishment of a more structured ‘parliamentary estate’, in defiance of the Royal Court’s claim that all its space was already too busy.
But if taxpayers' money is needed to back this decision and make these improvements, then our representatives may well hear very clear answers to these implicit questions.