Disappointed with constant sniping from the backbenches

I think a more professional approach, rather than constantly rushing to use social media and public platforms in a similar way to Trump, would be to work directly with his colleagues in a dignified and constructive matter. I think his approach shows a marked lack of good judgement and an excessive need to seek public admiration (good luck with that).

Why not let the deputies, who have committed to huge workloads on various committees (rather than resting on their laurels and sitting sniping from the underemployed backbenches), get on and give them the opportunity to find a way out of the total mess the island as a whole have been left in after the last eight years of government with Gavin St Pier in charge (like buying Delisles church for £1m.-plus and leaving it idle, failing to maintain infrastructure, doing away with 11-plus with no coherent alternative plan, increasing the number of civil servants at ever-increasing cost, and taking no constructive steps to correct the mental health crisis, to name but a few of the problems they have inherited)? Fortunately, the current States is not run as a dictatorship. I am sure they would willingly listen to any constructive advice or criticism.

I personally admire the deputies who are able to adapt swiftly to new information and alter decisions if new facts or information come to light that justifies a volte-face. To accuse them of ‘yo-yoing’ in a negative way for doing so is unmeritorious.

I am personally amazed the media is willing to listen to and print the constant whining and attention-seeking, under the guise of caring so much for the island, particularly when Gavin St Pier even failed to take up the reins at Health (a position for which he would have been suitable and it would have given him something more constructive to do). I am not interested in listening to these remarks and doubt many members of the public are. Instead GSP is coming across as having an inflated sense of his own importance and being a sore loser.

Why doesn’t he give his colleagues an opportunity to correct the marked inaction from the last government, and their mistakes, and help them to guide us on the right path without being sniped at at the first opportunity? They are in a very difficult position and need support and guidance rather than unnecessary and unfounded public attacks by one of their own. I do not think this does Gavin St Pier any favours, nor does it come across as professional.

I note there are two particular pertinent Codes of Conduct, by which all deputies are bound, namely:

8. Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of the States of Deliberation and never undertake any action which would bring the States or its members generally into disrepute.

I think Gavin St Pier’s comment that he is ‘ashamed to be part of the States’ is in direct breach of this Code of Conduct. It seeks to undermine the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of the States. If Gavin St Pier genuinely feels like that then he should of course feel free to resign.

9. Members shall at all times treat other members, civil servants and members of the public with respect and courtesy and without malice, notwithstanding the disagreements on issues and policy which are a normal part of the political process.

I do not think going on public media and accusing a fellow colleague of being ‘breathtakingly inept’ or acting ‘incompetently’ is either respectful or courteous. It is frankly demeaning.

Gavin St Pier is swift to criticise Deputy Le Tissier’s use of social media for what appears to be disparaging, offensive and inappropriate remarks, but I find there is no difference in the calibre of the comments made by either of them, whether they are criticising non locals under a pseudonym, or openly casting doubt on the integrity of their colleagues by accusing them of being incompetent and being ashamed to be a part of them.

ROBERT HENRY

Editor’s footnote: Gavin St Pier responds: I am grateful to the writer for expressing a view which invites and deserves a public response. Thank you for giving me an opportunity and platform to do so.

Given the contents and tone of the letter, I think it unlikely that the writer was one of the 57% of the electorate who voted for me in the general election. Those who did not do so must accept – like it or not – that I won a clear democratic mandate. I am being paid from public funds to scrutinise and challenge. I intend to do that throughout this term to the best of my ability. Colleagues being scrutinised and challenged in the Assembly and their allies outside don’t and won’t like it. It’s not personal. It’s never comfortable. I know, I’ve been on the other side and didn’t like it much then either. Leadership in a democratic political system is not and should not be an easy ride. I would be failing in my duty if I were to stay silent or sycophantically nod along with whatever is put in front of me. I am and will continue to challenge in different ways at different times, depending on the subject matter: behind the scenes in informal dialogue with civil servants and other deputies; by formal written and oral parliamentary questions; by amendments; in debate; and through the media and social media.

The letter is clearly a response to the public line I took on the Committee for Education, Sport & Culture’s position in relation to whether or not international exams would be held in Guernsey this summer. In that context, I did not, as the writer states, say I was ‘ashamed to be part of the States'. I actually said ‘I am embarrassed to be associated with an organisation that has mishandled this so badly’. Neither, as the writer says, did I accuse a fellow colleague of being ‘breathtakingly inept’ or acting ‘incompetently’. My comments were not personalised or targeted at any individual. I actually said that the ‘government’s handling of this is breathtakingly inept’ and the ‘next generation deserves better than incompetence’. Given the enormous stress and distress understandably caused at the time to the students and their families concerned, I stand by my comments. But I am also pleased to be associated with an organisation that subsequently changed its position and publicly apologised for how the matter had been handled and communicated, as the committee did, to its credit.

The writer also says I was ‘swift to criticise Deputy Le Tissier’s use of social media’ when in fact I’ve made no public comment on the topic, other than to note that having excluded himself from committee meetings whether he attends States meetings whilst the Code of Conduct Panel is considering the complaints against him is a matter for him.

If the writer (or anyone else) at any time believes the manner in which I (or any other member) discharge our roles is a breach of the Code of Conduct, I would of course encourage them to lodge a complaint to the panel.

Finally, if the writer does not like my use of social media, I would advise them to desist from following me and ignore my contributions to public discourse.