Rumblings of discontent put pressure on Policy Council, by Nick Mann

THERE was a shift in the political tectonic plates last week.

The rumblings of discontent with the Policy Council spilled out into outright public hostility as the floor of the Assembly found its real voice for the first time this term.

Two major reports by the Policy Council, all stuffed full of good ideas and ability to add order to the disorder, were thrown into disarray because, it was argued, they lacked the detail and evidence ministers have demanded of everyone else.

That, and some good old-fashioned conspiracy theories.

Back at the beginning of the term, when it was all about making friends and portraying an outward sense of harmony – because this was, after all, a 'new States' looking to set itself apart – this would not have happened.

That it has portrays all the political naivety that was warned about when the ministers won their seats.

How could they have left themselves so exposed to the onslaught of discontent in both the Government Service Plan and Strategic Asset Management Plan debates and seemingly be so surprised by it all?

Not only had the ministers failed so abjectly to bring other members with them, they ended the debate split themselves into the silos of bad days gone by.

It does, I suppose, answer those who feared the pre-meeting briefings that have become so popular had effectively killed off the chamber as a debating force.

The Assembly rose up and did the kind of scrutiny that some argue its committees should already have been doing.

Too few ministers were prepared to put their heads above the parapet when things began unravelling early during debate on the Fallaize amendment to the service plan and it was downhill from there.

There have been similar episodes in past terms and the judgement now from the Policy Council is where the line is drawn.

Talk of constipation was close to the mark.

When the States starts getting too bogged down in detail, it can end up suffering political paralysis, afraid to make all but the most basic of decisions.

It also leaves itself in danger of getting involved in the day-to-day management affairs of the civil service, not in the strategy setting it should be.

Last week, the Policy Council was exposed, it lost some of its authority and members were joking openly about its failure to communicate.

It will welcome the summer break to give it a chance to arrest the slide – but it has to come back and face more of the same in September.

Debate will continue on SAMP – its plans to rationalise the States property portfolio – and then, crucially, the Bebb requete, which is looking at lines of command for chief officers.

There is plenty of support for his moves by those who fear control by the 'centre'.

That the last few years have been all about establishing some way of bring corporate working to the committee system is of little consequence here.

How will the Policy Council quell this upwelling of opinion given its weakened position?

And if the indications from some on the floor are right, discontent with its leadership has been growing for some time on different issues.

This is the return to politics as we knew it from the past, time for passionate, opinionated debate – not the poodle politics we have been treated to of late.

Now there will be plenty of talk of lessons having been learnt – there always is after episodes like this – but politicos will have one eye on history.

Take the first Policy Council in 2004.

Its authority began to ebb perhaps as early as seven months into its term.

Again, discontent had been bubbling away behind the scenes and it just needed the smallest spark to set off the fireworks – this was on sub-groups.

The ministers by title were acting like real ministers in a cabinet, making decisions, trying to take control, and other deputies did not like it.

Eventually, that first Policy Council fell during the Fallagate saga – it had taken plenty of punishment in the meantime – so there is plenty on the line here if it does not earn the respect it needs.