States finds three ways to juggle hot potatoes

THERE is an oft-quoted phrase in the Assembly that 'no States can bind the next one'.

Which makes a lot of sense, otherwise nothing would ever change.

But what that should not mean is carte blanche for new committees to go off down blind alleyways, racking up hidden costs in wasted staff time, or adding layers of complexity to issues that have already been thoroughly debated and analysed.

What is happening both at Education on revisiting the secondary debate, and with Sacc on the island-wide voting referendum, is a perfect reminder of why the States should not rush through big decisions in the whirlwind that is the last few months of a term.

The vote on island-wide voting was a simple enough instruction – have a referendum on whether to keep the status quo or a vote on an island-wide basis for all 38 members. Indeed, so simple it should be an issue that this Assembly could put to bed early in the term and show the public that progress, however limited, is being made.

To learn that the committee is now contemplating putting four different options to the public and using some form of transferable voting to rank them to get a 'clear winner' smacks of a group of politicians with too much time on their hands looking to placate too many people.

They have no mandate from the States to propose different options but are doing so anyway, so what was the pre-general election vote for?

A cynic would suggest its timing provides a very clear answer.

The States of Guernsey is too often the land of deja vu politics, where one step forward is following by two steps sideways and a leap in a different direction.

Education, Sport & Culture is also under a States direction to do one thing but is intent on doing something else entirely.

They argue the vote in the general election – the message on the doorstep – was a clear sign the majority was not on board with ending selection and closing a school.

But anyone trying to read the runes of the ballot box knows that nothing is ever that simple.

It is amazing how often candidates hear what they want to hear because it fits their world view.

Wild policy swings are destabilising and lead to that feeling of distrust.

Each week now a different message comes out of Grange House from a different politician of what will be on the table and when, helping to add to the general impression that this is a committee without a clear sense of direction, trying hard to appease different factions with very different viewpoints.

There is a real danger that the compromise will be a fudge.

If the board wants to keep selection and a school open it should get the backing of the States to revisit the area.

Hours and hours of staff and political time are being spent on devising another new system.

Major policy changes are handled best when there is an initial buy-in and direction from the majority of the States, maybe a green paper to gauge the general mood and scrutinise options before coming up with firm proposals.

Education should have sorted this all last term so there were no threads left hanging – there is a responsibility for this sorry saga there – but equally this new committee needs to be basing its thinking on more than just guessing at the mood of their colleagues and the electorate – and it needs to do that quickly.

If it wants to turn the whole system on its head again it should get the go-ahead to do the work.

There is a tension and a judgement call of when the whole of the States should get involved in an issue to avoid micro-management, but when such a fundamental topic is being redrawn, when it is destabilising children's education and teachers' work, the answer should become obvious.

Selection was clearly an election issue – and a polarising one at that.

It will continue to cause divisions and is in danger of overwhelming Education to the detriment of working on a myriad of other issues that need to be addressed to move things forward.

There are many senior people inside the States shaking their heads at how the whole issue is being handled.

Waste disposal is another major issue that has been handed over. But how it is being moved forward is very different in tone.

There is no desire from those responsible to perform a U-turn – we've seen enough of those over the years – and the business case is on its way.

A Scrutiny hearing this week should help everyone understand much better the strategy and the work being done.

It will also help to test the project and the changes that have been made to it.

In all likelihood the whole issue will return to the States for the final seal of approval – it would be a very brave Policy & Resources Committee that uses its delegated authority to sign off the money for the project.

There has been an understandable frustration because of a lack of transparency over costs so far, but at least the sense of direction is clear, even in the face of some disquiet.

Three hot political issues, three very different approaches, all from one States.