Will it be a return to glacial-pace committee politics?

Take the case of the long neglected and under invested harbours. Some time ago I put forward suggestions to the Economic Development department based on extensive research and experience to develop the assets for the greater good of islanders. Yes, that is genuine. Part of the trouble is that no-one near the top of the States is seemingly willing to give an opinion on a commercial idea, however much effort one may have expended on it. In other words, such efforts are worthless unless they come from within, or so it seems. The almost robotic-like response from the States is usually along the lines that they ‘are waiting for a report to be commissioned’ or that they ‘are liaising with a steering group’ or they ‘are working on their own proposals’. Take that as read, it means the can is being kicked down the road or the can is in the bushes.

From what I have learned over the years, the States excels when it comes to creating steering groups or commissioning inch-thick reports; it’s all part of an eternal tick box exercise. The result of those reports: factoid after factoid (many with valid observations and recommendations) that gather dust in some corner somewhere, but very rarely anything in the way of follow-up action and, importantly, no mechanism for follow-up action. What a waste of time and resources. Take, for example, the Seafront Enhancement Group, which towards the end of 2018 came up with ‘the opportunity for the community to shape the future use of six sites on the Town seafront’. Only one is active, the rest dormant as far as one can make out from the States’ last website update in June 2019.

The vast majority of the States’ proposals on infrastructure which go out to public consultation dissipate to nothing in the end. The ‘odd’ media story gets released attempting to portray active plans. Sometimes with new initiatives, the States starts a fake public consultation, fake because the consultation is made to look as though the public will be able to make genuine input, whereas behind the scenes the States’ minds have already been made up or they are influenced by a small clique, just another tick box exercise. Take another example, Longue Hougue South: this has been portrayed as in the best interests of islanders as a site for inert waste, so a public consultation was initiated to convince the public of its merits. It’s a flawed idea, another tick box exercise because it doesn’t look at the broader picture in commercial and community benefit that might be gained from using sites and areas immediately around the island’s two ports. These might also help as flood defences. In this case, the States seems to take an almost obsessive line on obscure environmental data. Another States tendency when looking at infrastructure projects is to mothball one steering group and then reinvent it with a new name at a later stage.

If we recognise the need to at least make the island’s assets perspire a little bit, one can develop leisure and tourism in general. Yes, tourism and foreign investment will return and the island will need that revenue post-coronavirus as never before.

Location, location, location. Just as a reminder of how lucky the island is, about 300 million people reside within a few hours’ travel of the island, so that is a huge captive audience. But we need to make improvements. Progress and change are intertwined.

I have already put some fairly mild ideas for the seafront to the States, but there has been no serious attempt to engage so I will happily put these in the public domain and that may be better. The States may have a monopoly on most of its operations but it’s not a monopoly on wisdom, although one could be forgiven for assuming that.

Note that this preamble is not about validating one person’s ideas or ego as there are many more talented than myself. It’s about openness and respect: openness to ideas, openness in communication lines, open for business.

Islanders, do you want your island to head down the road to becoming a parochial backwater or for the island to be creative, vibrant and attractive as a destination as a place to live?

SEAN FULLER

seanefuller@outlook.com