System of consensus government is a herbivore – it needs to grow fangs

Consensus government

The first is a view of our system of government. This system is based upon the principle of consensus. That is the requirement for a majority of deputies to agree. By its supporters this is viewed as democracy working at its very best. Alternatively, it can be seen as a system designed to prevent the making of difficult and unpopular decisions, a system where inertia is built in. When times are good and there is plenty of money to go around, it probably works quite well, after all, we are all Guernseymen and we don’t like change, eh? I’m a Guernseyman and I don’t like change. When times get tough however, such as they are now, it doesn’t work so well. Consensus will keep the Guernsey Ship of State sailing nicely up the middle of the Little Russel, but if a sharp tack is needed towards Brehon Tower, well don’t hold your breath. Sometimes unpopular decisions have to be made. Indeed sometimes it falls to our elected representatives to make such decisions regardless of public opinion. Evidence from the recent tax debates shows us, yet again, that we do not have a robust system of government set up to take such steps. One of the benefits of being a small jurisdiction should be that we are light on our feet. While government labours under this constipated system of consensus, we will remain anything but. Island-wide voting was a step in the right direction but now we need to go further. All the way to full party politics? Possibly but not necessarily. However, something is definitely required with a bit more ‘executive’ about it. We used to have a conseiller’s bench and if the Advisory & Finance Committee supported a policy, it would get through. Not anymore. Now it seems that the first-time deputy, who gets in by one vote, has the same power as the chief minister with 20 years’ service under his belt. Back on board the Good Ship Guernsey, Captain Pugwash says: ‘Iceberg ahoy! 500 yards off the starboard bow. Steer 30 degrees to port please, Mr Helmsman.’

Tom the cabin boy pipes up: ‘Hang on a minute, I’m not sure about that. Let’s get all the crew together and have a chat.’

Is it really beyond us to create a system with a little bit more hierarchy included? As an aside, from a taxpayers’ point of view, this system is hugely wasteful and inefficient. Examples of this are numerous but the very worst was our War And Peace waste saga. It went on forever, cost zillions, and in the end produced our present method of ‘Wrap it up and ship it off somewhere else’. This has a carbon footprint the size of an elephant and is basically a tepid, consensus-produced fudge of a result.

Forty people have just spent six days talking to each other. Add to that all the associated States Chambre costs and salaries. At the end of it they have achieved sweet Fanny Adams.

I want my money back. Charles Darwin’s famous theory is known as the ‘survival of the fittest’. It is equally well described as ‘survival of the most adaptable’. Our system of consensus government is a real herbivore. It needs to grow fangs. We should take a leaf out of nature’s book and evolve.

Listen

The second observation I wish to make is something I once came across in connection with business management. It was: ‘Surround yourself with good people and let them get on with it.' Well, it appears to me that that is exactly what the Policy & Resources Committee did. They appointed a sub-committee whose task it was to go away, wrap a cold towel around their heads and devise policies to get the local tax take-up to 24% of GDP. It is worth noting that this sub-committee actually had its roots in the previous P&R committee under Deputy St Pier. On this sub-committee were Deputies Roffey, Mahoney and Helyar and non-States member Mark Thompson, ex-senior partner at KPMG. A brief review of the CVs of these four people by anyone who is interested will show that, in terms of intellect and experience, the matter was in good hands. Further investigation by the enquirer would provide comfort that the issue under consideration would be properly reviewed from all the key perspectives, the main ones being economic, commercial and social. The issue is clearly a complex one with numerous potential solutions all with their own set of consequences attached. Once the sub-committee had finished their deliberations, the current P&R committee would have had to consider and approve their suggestions. Then before these became firm proposals they would have been subject to review by the Treasury Department and given a legal health check by the law officers. So, all in all, a lengthy process of consideration, analysis of alternatives, weighing up of consequences, development of policy and final scrutiny. Much more weight should have been given to this process when the matter was debated. I am not qualified to comment on the specific content of each of the various proposals, the following is therefore just a layman’s observation and apologies to anyone if I am too wide of the mark. The original P&R proposal (Option A) was obviously the serious contender to be adopted as Guernsey’s new set of tax laws. Deputy Parkinson put forward an alternative focused on territorial tax changes. It was well researched and constructed by someone who clearly knows their subject. It was seen as a step too far to take, independently of Jersey and the Isle of Man. The proposals from Deputies St Pier and Soulsby may have had merit to them but it was impossible to avoid the sense that they were also both populist and politicised, ie., anything but what Ferbrache and Helyar wanted. The second set of P&R proposals, put forward in round two, looked like grasping at straws and they shouldn’t have bothered.

Hand in hand with the various proposals came the inevitable raft of amendments, all of them well-meaning but based on a ‘seemed like a good idea at the time’ approach.

There is a place for refining the details of a complicated tax policy but its not on the floor of the House. Option A was a good and workable solution put forward by P&R who had been charged with the task. It should have been accepted.

To summarise, our system of government needs to change into something more fitting for its current purpose – and it would mark significant progress if those involved in the decision-making process would allow themselves to be guided by those who know what they are talking about.

Jeremy Rihoy

Les Beaucamps