Bad day at the office
IT WAS predictable that no one came out of last week's vote of no confidence debacle with much credit, if any.
IT WAS predictable that no one came out of last week's vote of no confidence debacle with much credit, if any.
Health and Social Services, the Policy Council, Treasury and Resources, the motion leaders and the chief minister will all reflect on a bad day at the office.
If it was all about political judgement, it took far too long for the former HSSD board to show it.
Its last-minute change of heart to resign instead of face the motion, having earlier insisted they wanted to use the debate to justify their actions, again highlighted its muddled thinking.
Then there were the different deputies who attacked the role of the chief accountant in the whole affair, crossing the line by speaking out against people who cannot defend themselves in debate and arguably breaching the States members' code of conduct in doing so.
There was a Policy Council that failed to stand as one on the resignation issue throughout, although most bided by the rule that silence is golden during debate on whether to sanction the overspend.
Many felt the chief minister should have been heard much more throughout the whole saga to show the leadership in public that he was elected to provide.
He and the Policy Council also took a blow to the stomach when the Assembly overwhelmingly rejected its candidate for Health minister, Deputy Dave Jones, in favour of Deputy Mark Dorey, who won the day with a typically analytical speech that played up his experience across different departments.
The Assembly showed its muddied thinking by re-electing back onto the board two of those who resigned after the floor failed to put forward any candidates.
So there was no vote, no chance for this HSSD to claim any more legitimacy than the last.
And then there is a Treasury and Resources department that heard a lot of criticism of its role – the first time the new board tries to show strength over finances and it is left severely bruised.
So what was it all about?
The lack of financial discipline at HSSD, its slowness to react?
No, debate to sanction its £2.5m. overspend seems to indicate that the States was generally very sympathetic to its situation, seemingly unconcerned by the contradictions in the department's insistence that it was both on top of its finances yet did not have the resources or information needed to be so.
Many felt if the board had stuck to its position and faced the vote of no confidence it would have come out with a decisive majority in favour of it.
Discontentment with States fiscal policy and the pressure being put on departments by the Financial Transformation Programme was clear and has been bubbling to the surface more and more.
There will be a debate on the FTP early next year – a first chance to find out whether the desire to save still holds.
No doubt there was an element that simply wanted a new minister.
Deputy Hunter Adam lost his seat in a flash and it was only after the event that one of his colleagues saw fit to pay tribute to his work – it was a noticeably heartfelt message from Deputy Dave Jones when he stood to ask members to recognise what Deputy Adam had achieved.
Deputy Adam, who reportedly harbours a desire to get a seat on Treasury and Resources, left the Royal Court via the garage at the back, so did not face the media or many of his colleagues after losing his seat.
No one has been able to ask what he now sees his future as, whether inside the States or out.
But he went down fighting with an opening speech during the overspend debate which many saw as his best – full of fire and with a clarity of thought that had been lacking too many times before this term.
Was it the former HSSD's actions in cancelling operations and closing a ward which led to its downfall?
To a certain extent, yes, and if we have learned anything from the whole saga it is this – the Assembly is not happy when major decisions are taken without its consent.
Had HSSD come to the Assembly early asking for extra money, it would have got it.
Deputies all see themselves as in government and they want to be able to meddle.
The Budget debate was the clearest sign of this – increasing tobacco duty to fund anti-smoking initiatives might be just the start of an obsession with fiddling with department policy by the Assembly.
The United States of Change is also in limbo because it has no direction. It is growing restless because it sees a big-hitting strategy which is having a major impact on everyday political life that it had nothing to do with and has yet to endorse.
That is the FTP.
That restlessness is also why members voted for the capital prioritisation debate to happen sooner than planned, even if it means not having all the information on the table when making its decisions.
Members want to be seen to act.
The States enters its Christmas recess in a period of instability not shown by its predecessors so early on.
Major strategies that were meant to smooth the transition period between the old and the new States are being openly questioned.
Treasury's authority is in doubt.
And a new Health and Social Services board will barely get its feet under the table before auld lang syne is sung.
Welcome to politics.
