The £400,000 question

ONLY this States, gripped in some kind of a fever, could vote to spend up to £400,000 on something it already knows the answer to using a mechanism it doesn't have.

That's what happens when an election starts looming – just give the people what they want, whatever the consequences.

It's the St Sampson's Les Effards main drains requete of 2007 all over again.

So how did the island end up with a referendum on island-wide voting and what are the consequences of that move?

Maybe we should cast our minds back to the heady days of 2014 – we could go back further, but space is limited.

The Hadley requete called for island-wide voting for the upcoming general election. There was a successful amendment to have a referendum before that happened. In July of that year, the whole package was thrown out by 27 votes to 18.

Now we have this same States agreeing to island-wide voting subject to a public referendum.

What has changed, apart from some minds and the names of the people proposing the move?

The only material factor is the reduction in the number of States members from 45 to 38.

All the practical problems of island-wide voting remain – the number of manifestos for voters to go through, how to arrange the hustings, how to campaign fairly and successfully without party politics.

This States has been consistently inconsistent on island-wide voting.

The leader of the amendment that led to where we are now, Deputy Peter Gillson, voted against island-wide voting in 2014.

Long-time supporter of island-wide voting Deputy Mary Lowe voted against this time because of the cost of a referendum, although she supported a referendum in 2014 when there were no costs attached to it.

It takes, on average, just over a year for the issue of island-wide voting to come back to the States in some form or another.

The trick of each Assembly has been to support eventually an investigation for their successors to sort out – presumably so they can all go out on the campaign trail in a position where they please the pro and anti camps.

This time they will argue the vote is much more proactive and say it will happen unless the public says no.

There are many hurdles to overcome, which makes that assertion far from clear cut.

In the 13 years since the States passed a policy to introduce referendum legislation they have failed to come up with a law.

On the face of it, this should be pretty simple.

But there are issues to be thought through and no one so far has wanted to commit to this thinking with no obvious cause.

No such excuses now, though.

A non-binding referendum is said to be relatively simple to put into law.

But the public do not like the idea of being asked for an opinion and then the States having the power to reject it.

Government, on the other hand, would be pretty uncomfortable with having to enact everything the public said in a referendum.

There is an assumption from those who back this process for island-wide voting that the answer will be clear cut – and it certainly has been whenever public surveys have been done.

What, though, if voter turnout is poor, if the result is evenly split. What threshold needs to be crossed before the answer gained is legitimate?

This is not, whatever some people might like to argue, on the same scale as the Scottish or EU referendums.

Indeed, given the nature of the topic it is unlikely to garner broad appeal across different sectors of society. Politicians and political watchers love to chew over electoral systems and opine that it will be the panacea to political engagement among the disaffected – the disaffected remain, though, just that.

There will be debate, too, about the wording of the question.

A simple do you support island-wide voting is a different question to do you support it for 38 deputies, which is different again if you then tagged on some of the consequences of that, i.e. if it meant having to sift through 80-plus manifestos.

There is more than a 50/50 chance that individuals in the next government will want to get their own pet systems thrown into the mix – the hybrid island-wide and district model with different balances.

It has happened each term and there is no reason to see why it would not happen again this time around, whatever last week's vote said.

There are questions of process too.

What about funding for the pro and anti campaigns? Would that be from taxpayers, private donations, any limits to it? Who will head them up and where would that franchise come from? Or would it be left to grow organically?

Timing we know can influence turnouts, another issue that will have to be agreed upon.

If this States had supported a referendum for island-wide voting in time for the 2016 General Election – and ironed out all the loose ends that entails – there would be something so much more satisfying about the position it has reached.

There would be a clear line of accountability and achievement.

This just smacks of a rushed fudge, especially as it had already ordered a report into an island-wide voting referendum.

Just how rushed this is is exemplified by talks now to have a ballot paper when the island goes to the polls in April instead of a full-blown referendum next term.

While superficially attractive, it would just be yet another public survey – albeit with the chance of capturing more people because they are voting anyway.

You would fail to get those who have not signed up to the electoral roll because there is currently no island-wide voting, for example.

There would be little chance for significant public debate on island-wide voting to inform the poll – leading to a chance it could be skewed by a few strong personalities who can grab the attention.

While there is stacks of information out there buried in different Billets, few outside political circles would have delved into the reports.

The States, though, has delved in.

It already has before it all the information it needs to make a decision on island-wide voting.

It has already been out to consultation on the issue. It knows all the administrative hurdles. It knows the majority of the public want an island-wide system.

So why isn't government brave enough to do what it has been elected to do and make a decision? That is now a £400,000 question.

The ins, the outs and the undecided

In, out, shake it all about. Your guide to the latest on current States members and the next election:

STANDING

Jonathan Le Tocq

Gavin St Pier

Kevin Stewart

Mike O'Hara

Dave Jones

Lyndon Trott

Heidi Soulsby

Matt Fallaize

Barry Brehaut

Barry Paint

Chris Green

Laurie Queripel

Charles Parkinson

David de Lisle

David Inglis

Mary Lowe

Sandra James

Mark Dorey

Al Brouard

Mike Hadley

Garry Collins

Michelle Le Clerc

Darren Duquemin (99.9% certain)

John Gollop (probably)

STANDING DOWN

Allister Langlois

Peter Gillson

Peter Harwood

Richard Conder

Elis Bebb

Tony Spruce

Roger Perrot

Paul Luxon

Andrew Le Lievre

UNDECIDED

or NOT KNOWN

Arrun Wilkie

Jan Kuttelwascher

Roger Domaille

Yvonne Burford

Rob Jones

Peter Sherbourne

Hunter Adam

Lester Queripel

Robert Sillars

Francis Quin

Scott Ogier

Paul Le Pelley