Decisions made were based on the arguments presented at the time

Firstly, you accuse ‘the States’ of settling old scores by not choosing Deputy Gavin St Pier. But half of them are newbies. What old scores are they supposed to have been settling? You made no attempt to explain.

Secondly, to describe newbies as having no ‘understanding of how government works’ is to make a series of assumptions about them. Many have done their research. Others have worked for the States as civil servants. One claims to have sat through more States meetings in the last decade or so than all but three of those who sought re-election. They may succeed or fail (surely they’ll do a bit of each) but writing them off already smacks of an editor seeking attention. Worse: of an editor licking their lips in anticipation of failure.

Thirdly, ascribing collective motivation to electors in an election is a failure of imagination. I have no patience with anyone who blandly declares that Guernsey’s voters voted for change (when the majority of those seeking re-election succeeded) or, equally blandly, that they voted for continuity (surely people voted for the candidates they wanted to see elected, with ‘experience vs freshness’ being just one of myriad considerations). Similarly, to declare that Deputy St Pier’s failure to get the STSB job was an act of ‘casting aside political experience’ or being ‘vindictive or lacking in judgement’ does not bear close inspection. They chose Deputy Peter Roffey instead – a man with more experience. Deputy St Pier laid out a radical programme of change and told members to vote for Deputy Roffey if they didn’t agree with it. Some may simply have followed that suggestion. Others may have found Deputy Roffey’s proposals more exciting or his priorities more in keeping with theirs. I would hazard a guess that one of the 24 deputies who voted for Deputy Roffey will have been Deputy Lindsay de Sausmarez – given that she nominated him for the role – and I don’t think she, as a vocal member of the Guernsey Partnership of Independents, can be accused of failing to recognise Deputy St Pier’s value to the island. It’s also worth noting that Deputy St Pier – rather unwisely, I felt at the time – threatened to resign during this, his election speech, if he didn’t subsequently get the board members he wanted. I think one or two may have taken umbrage at that. Some may indeed have resolved not to vote for Deputy St Pier come what may, but there was no evidence – nor any hint – of this.

I don’t think you know what motivated each deputies’ vote any more than I do. We should speculate only tentatively.

Fourthly, regarding your waste-of-experience charge, Deputy St Pier made it clear he wanted STSB after failing to get the top job and he could easily have taken the available seat on Health but chose not to go for it. Personally, I believe if he had been nominated for the Health presidency earlier in the week, he would’ve got it ahead of either deputies David De Lisle or Al Brouard, the latter having also threatened to resign before he’d even started.

On the face of it, the poll-topper getting no portfolio to work on is unfortunate and doesn’t appear to reflect the will of the people. But the experience of listening to all the debates simply revealed to me a new Assembly making decisions based on the arguments presented to them at the time. And that is the one thing I was hoping for this term, after years of too much prepared speechifying and closed minds. There was also a distinct absence of any semblance of animosity throughout the proceedings, including from the defeated candidates.

For deputies St Pier and Trott, there are now billets to examine, amendments to draft, legislation to approve, parishioners to listen to, nurses to campaign for (if they so wish) and, yes, lofts to clear out. They haven’t thrown their toys out of the pram. Please don’t do it for them.

SIMON DE LA RUE,

St Saviour’s.