Decentralising ‘thinking’ could help broaden States debate

And if developed it is one that could perhaps work much more comfortably to help turbocharge the flawed consensus model than diving into ill-thought-out associations.

That is the role of bodies such as think tanks or policy institutes to advocate, inform and campaign from outside the States.

We see flourishes of this type of activity.

The Guernsey Disability Alliance has become an effective force in pushing forward the agenda on equal rights, accelerating a process that would have stalled entirely had it been left in the hands of politicians.

Liberate has helped forward the equal marriage and equality debate, while the Guernsey Community Foundation works on social policy and improving the role of the voluntary sector.

In their own small way douzaines act as sounding boards to influence States policy in areas such as waste collection, but their role and expertise across a broad mandate is necessarily limited.

Business groups also add their voice to the mix, but in a limited way, and by their structure tending to the middle ground of their members.

This week we have seen an unprecedented coming together of the religious community to lobby in the assisted-dying debate.

Inevitably, these bodies help drive a more informed debate in their areas of expertise than would otherwise be the case, but it is too often reactionary, too narrow.

There is not a wide enough network to help ensure that the right policies are being enacted across economic, social and environmental issues with a broad enough evidence base to support them.

Too much of the ‘thinking’ is done centrally and dripped out into the community.

Sometimes issues fly under the radar and are not tested and pulled apart as they should be because they have failed to ignite the public imagination – and in doing so fail to ignite States members’ critical analysis chip.

Developed further, these are the types of organisation that could help drive forward issues that would remain off the radar, or poorly understood or researched.

They can also be an opportunity to give a voice to the marginalised or those disenchanted with politics; to provide a platform for those without the time to stand full time for the States but who want to help drive the island forward; and for those who want to focus on areas where they have expertise but have no real outlet to do so.

A well-developed and trusted network could also help do away with the constant calling on outside bodies to research local issues, adding to the at times woeful, albeit improving, data bank that the States has and relies on.

They could also help with the gripe of independent deputies that they do not have the resources, time or people power to move forward on issues that they would like to develop.

Those who cannot see a role for building this area of democracy will see demons, they will see a murky and unaccountable lobby having a growing foothold.

Perhaps financing of these groups could buy influence, they would argue.

But if there is transparency and their purposes are well understood, that need not be a problem, or certainly no more of a problem than it currently is – indeed, it could be an improvement.

Anyone can pick up a phone or wine and dine a politician as it is.

The Islanders Association is taking anonymous donations to help create a £150,000 fighting fund.

It wants to develop a manifesto and policy proposals, but runs the ever-present danger of not only failing to meet those lofty financial targets, but failing to attract a well-informed and well-rounded base – principally at the moment because no one really knows what it stands for.

So what if that funding was made available to groups outside the States to research, for example, very particular aspects of Guernsey economics, so that when budget proposals are announced, there is a credible voice from outside the walls of Frossard House to help analyse them and explain their impacts and whether there are better options?

Or when the medium term financial plan is published, there is a group ensuring the figures add up and there are no hidden bear traps or sleights of hand contemporaneously.

We are talking of a more sophisticated debate than garages bemoaning a fuel duty increase, for example.

Often the Budget debate, like others, becomes one of the same voices echoing the same opinions, while the mountain of information to sift through in less than a month ensures that not all aspects are fully explored and tested.

Deputies, for all that some of them might think, are not all experts, and they have not become so simply by winning votes in a ballot box.

They rely, or at least they should, on the information and evidence that is before them to analyse and come to a conclusion.

If that all comes from within the walls of Frossard House, or conversely through one conversation with one self-proclaimed expert, or a night of googling, then the debate is tainted.

The better and broader that information and evidence guiding where this island is going, the better.