Looking back in anger...

That led to me speaking with what I would describe as passion, but to some others it came across as anger. I think Deputy Victoria Oliver even included me in her characterisation of members displaying excess machismo. I don’t really know what to make of that.

In some ways I am quite touched. I’ve been accused of many things over the years but being a macho man is definitely a first.

Personally, I think really, really caring about stuff is a good thing in a politician. Plus most of those accusing me of going OTT, or even ‘spouting bile’, have long track records of ‘attack speeches’ themselves. By contrast, if I get negative it is almost always about policies I don’t like, not people.

But far more important than a ‘he said, she said’ analysis of debating styles is for me to explain just why I got so heated.

It was not because some people didn’t like the ports proposals from the STSB. It was not because I thought they would be defeated. Of course all that would have been disappointing, but it is just democracy.

I assure you I am well used to it.

Anyway, the States, which likes to characterise itself as the ‘Action this day Assembly’, has a perfect right to vacillate and decide to do nothing.

By the way, we are eight months in now and what has been done so far? Lots of master planning and lots of attacking our predecessors, as displacement activity, but nothing really tangible.

No, what really annoyed me were two things.

The first was that after a really top-notch, professional team from Guernsey Ports, backed by leading experts in the field, had spent the best part of two years looking at future harbour provision, at the behest of the States, an 11th hour amendment was produced suggesting that the report not even be debated.

This was done without a hint to the STSB that the motion was coming, but it was patently clear that other States members had been consulted.

This was done by a P&R committee which had been kept informed of the ports investigation and which a few weeks ago had unanimously agreed with us not only that it should be debated but that the debate should go ahead without delay.

There was also a rich irony that this all took place at a States meeting which was preceded by a breakfast presentation from P&R where they explained they wanted to change the rules of procedure. The reason for this change, they explained, was to encourage members to engage properly with stakeholders before laying amendments. Apparently this is just basic good governance. But apparently the same governance principles do not extend to P&R.

I suppose the second thing which got my pulse racing was a growing realisation that – unlike any States I have sat in before – outcomes in this one seem to be pre-determined by ingrained power blocks rather than by the strength of arguments.

OK. Call me naive. I have never hidden the fact that I don’t like the arrival of party politics in Guernsey, but I should probably have been fully awake to the consequences. I suppose I did realise what it was likely to mean but I was just hoping against hope that I was wrong.

I was hoping that, despite various party labels, all deputies would be ‘floating voters’, supporting policies which appeared sound and which were cogently delivered while rejecting those that didn’t pass muster. And I really hoped that would hold true whoever was leading those proposals.

I know I will continue to judge proposals coming before the States in just that way. I always have. If my greatest political nemesis (don’t ask) puts forward something sensible, I will vote for it. If my closest political ally (don’t ask) puts forward something I disagree with, then I will vote against. Loyalties should always come second to judgement.

Some of my colleagues may well accuse me of discourtesy in suggesting that approach isn’t shared by all of them, but I have to speak as I find.

Indeed I have bottled up the strong feeling that allegiances were trumping all other considerations for some months now, hoping it was just my imagination.

But there comes a time when you simply have to face realities.

On the surface it doesn’t seem as if any official political grouping has the numbers to dictate outcomes. It doesn’t. But what has emerged is a sort of unofficial ruling coalition. Some stood under one party label, others under another and still others as independents, but the block exists and will likely determine every outcome for the next few years.

Of course, birds of a feather have the right to flock together and if I find myself in a persistent minority position in the States it certainly won’t be the first time.

What is completely novel for me, in my seventh assembly, is the feeling that debate or strength of argument is almost irrelevant.

Fail to get a seal of approval by the leaders of the governing coalition and you are doomed, however sound your proposals. That’s frustrating enough, but the converse is even worse.

Get the seal of approval from the ruling coalition and your proposals will sail through however weak, poorly constructed or potentially damaging.

I still hope to be proved wrong, but there comes a time when you have to call it as you see it.

And as for ports?

Well there is much talk about reviving sporting contests against the States of Jersey. I suggest including a can-kicking competition because we would win hands down.