No wonder the public feel disenfranchised – the States don't listen

Nick Mann's article (Guernsey Press, 11 November) suggests that the public has been slow to recognise the consequences of the decisions taken by States deputies. However, the problem is more fundamental than this.

The deputies may well believe they have consulted, whereas large swathes of the public believe that the deputies have not listened to them and are not doing what the public wants.

The consequence of our weak system of democracy is that it permits the election of deputies without the electorate having the faintest idea of the sorts of policies the candidates will vote for. So no one should be surprised that we get stuck with minority views, which the majority of people don't really want.

Deputies may wonder why they are unpopular and why the electorate feels disenfranchised from the political process. I am sure our deputies do what they do, vote how they vote, with the best of intentions, but until they accept that deputies are there to represent the electorate in general and not overlay the vote with their own prejudices and opinions, then they shouldn't be terribly surprised about their unpopularity, nor at the lack of public engagement with the political process.

How exactly did we find ourselves in a position where a well-meaning person, voted in by less than 2% of the population, brings in a policy that affects 100% of the population, that most appear to be against?

Apparently, all you have to do is persuade 23 powerful people who haven't done their homework properly. And no one can reasonably argue that the homework was properly done when so many people seem to object.

Our weak system of democracy might stand a chance of working if deputies were required to, and understood how to, engage with the electorate before a vote, and I do not mean speaking to the minor handful of people in one particular district that elected them, but the wider majority who are affected by their decisions. But they do not. Certainly I was never consulted in any meaningful way on the transport strategy, or on waste management; I did attend a consultation meeting on the tax strategy, but I wonder if I will be asked for my opinion on what is eventually proposed.

And by 'consultation', I don't mean holding constituency surgeries or poorly supported, rare, intimidating (for most) and inconvenient public meetings, or publishing a consultation document. The cynics among us believe these are just ways for them to ignore what they are told and move on with the original proposal, having now ticked the 'consultation' box.

So how should they 'consult'? Today, this is easy. We live in an age where it is practical and very quick to get the vibe of public opinion using social media, or cheap-to-construct, web-based surveys. Today there is no real excuse for not asking the public what they really want. The trick will be to put a succinct and unbiased case for and against. The people have a right to demand that government does what the majority want it to do. Deputies have the duty to do what the electorate tells them to do, whether or not they agree personally.

And government should only bring in policies that the public wants. It is all very well for someone with a bee in their bonnet to dream up policies to change society, but people need to be convinced that, overall, there is a benefit.

The consultation process needs to be robust, thorough and lead to consensus among the public. The States is demonstrably failing the people on consultation. Rightly or wrongly, significant numbers do not agree with what is currently proposed on transport, on waste management and recycling, and many fear what is coming down the track with tax.

So, to any deputy still listening, my own thoughts (for what they are worth):

• Don’t bother ‘enhancing’ the bus service. It can never work while it is more convenient to own a car. You can’t carry your weekly shop, the bus never goes to the right place, and they are never frequent enough. People just value their time too much now, and rightly so.

• I would vote against a width and emissions tax. A width tax is the politics of envy and discriminates against families. We already have an emissions tax with duty on fuel – increase that, if you want to.

• If the proceeds were put into new parking facilities in Town and other places like Cobo, where parking is a problem, I would vote for paid parking, otherwise I would vote against. We shouldn’t have to worry about not being able to find a place to park, and most would be prepared to pay something for the certainty of a convenient space at the right time. It could be collected very simply online. Plus the certainty of parking would bring shoppers back to our main retail area without pushing them towards the internet.

• I would vote against GST. It particularly hits the low paid, mostly vulnerable people, and requires more, hugely expensive, civil servants to administer. T&R fusses about the ‘narrowness’ of our revenue, but I don’t see the problem – collecting most of the States’ revenue from income tax keeps down admin costs, and allows us to see exactly how much the cost of government is growing. Instead, add a penny or two to income tax, or bring in a tax on higher earners.

• On waste management, go back to using bring banks. The expensive kerbside recycling project has not resulted in higher levels of recycling, so let’s call time on that bright and expensive idea. I regularly go shopping at the supermarket – it is not a big deal to drop off my recycling there at the same time. I still use the bring banks anyway as, for a family of five adult-sized people, two weeks between collections of recyclables is too long.

• Keep looking for ways to cut the footprint of government and our still massively high civil service costs. FTP has barely started – it’s not yet time to tick that box.

• Worry less about the huge cost for essential infrastructure projects and worry instead about value for money, durability of the project and the consequences of not doing them. Our forebears would never have built things we now take for granted, such as the existing harbour, our sea defences and the sewage system if they had focused as much as we do now on cost.

PETER ROSE,

Les Anguillieres,

Route de la Rocque,

St Peter's.