Here’s how to spot a false policy

Since it hasn’t been published yet – I’ll let you know when it is – it would be wrong to go into the details.

Suffice it to say it was one of the most alarming things I’ve put together.

To the point where I ran it past a senior political figure here to test the data indicating we’re potentially at a tipping point. ‘Very good,’ they said. Apart from a wrong figure on the cost of Alderney to the Guernsey taxpayer (actually £8m. a year and rising) the piece was ‘entirely accurate’.

As I say, the underpinning details will have to wait but it does make you wonder, along with the island’s sclerotic economic performance, collapsing house prices and eviscerated construction sector, how we got into this mess.

Sadly, the answer is simple. The island’s consensus system of government is failing the Bailiwick and its citizens.

Not because we don’t have a ministerial or executive system, much though that would help, but because the focus has switched from doing what’s best for the island to pursuing individual or departmental agendas.

Testing this theory with another politician who’s been round the block a bit gained the following response: ‘Yes, absolutely, but don’t forget we’ve now fewer bosses in the States than at any time in the past.’

Back in the day when the House was full of growers, farmers and business owners, the focus was on the economy. What was good for the island happened to be good for them too.

Social policy development was slower, certainly, and based on what could pragmatically be afforded, but the island still managed to bring in the (then) hugely controversial earnings-related social security system that we now take for granted.

I don’t say go back to those days, but we are seeing the consequences of an Assembly of independents with little consensus on what’s essential, what’s important or what’s just nice to have.

A strategy on strategies, anyone?

Happily, Environment & Infrastructure have provided a perfect example of the dangers of what we might call these ‘micro-agendas’.

Its president declares: ‘Road safety is the highest priority… in terms of key transport policy aims and objectives over the next few years.’

Yet the roads seem remarkably accident-free given traffic volumes and the large number of buses and lorries on the roads. You and I might think trying to mitigate congestion, thereby improving productivity and reducing costs, plus preparing for the electric vehicle transport revolution, is more pressing. Fortunately the worthies at E&I are there to put us straight: Guernsey’s roads are seething death-traps.

My main thrust in pointing out the mounting perils of ‘political agenda-isation’, however, is how we know whether we’re being taken for a ride in what we’re being told. Spotting fake policy development, in other words.

Evidence and consultation are obviously key here. Engaging with people properly is so important and significant that it is regulated in some jurisdictions and for some bodies. Not so for the committees.

Yes, there are guidelines – and now I’ve asked @govgg about them, they will be published – but politicians can and do ignore them. E&I in all probability has done so.

We know this because in other jurisdictions where obtaining the public’s input on matters that affect them is taken seriously, there are agreed steps to follow.

First up is notification, to let folk know something’s in the offing. That should be followed by consultation, or a two-way exchange of opinion and information, then participation, that old favourite of focus, lobby or pressure groups contributing to the policy or legislation being drafted.

Unsurprisingly, this has been codified into something called the Arnstein Ladder of Citizen Participation. Done badly, it results in non- or token participation. Done properly, involving community control, some delegated power and partnership, it results in citizen empowerment.

At a glance, then, it’s clear E&I’s speed limit ‘consultation’ is a sham. Forget Arnstein, you can see that just from Environment not bothering to engage with Home Affairs, which released its own carefully-worded ‘what the hell are you up to?’ response last week.

But it’s actually worse than that. So determined are E&I members to impose their own view of road safety here that they launched an online survey to prove that we’re cringingly fearful of stepping outside our doors and demanding action about our roads of death.

Novoville, the free mobile app that was used, is good and something government should be using more of. Unfortunately, Environment loaded its survey – with a presumption that safety is an issue instead of asking whether it is – and risks discrediting the process.

For instance, as a pedestrian, what would be your top priority for improving your safety? The aspirational options provided were: Reducing traffic volumes, reducing traffic speeds, restricting types of vehicles, reducing pavement surfing, increasing quality and quantity of pavements, better crossing provision or reducing emissions to improve air quality. Good grief, agenda or what?

So having established that the States have guidelines, did E&I follow them? The guarded response I got was, ‘…it’s difficult for us to comment publicly about advice we gave a committee and then any decisions they made.’

Which I take as a diplomatic way of saying the political board of Environment ignored what they were told about doing it properly. So when the survey results are released ‘showing’ whatever restriction, speed limit or fresh burden on road users E&I has up its sleeve, you know it’s utter guff and another false policy.