Richard Digard: There is an alternative to executive government

THANKS to Scrutiny’s grilling of the politicians on Policy & Resources the other day, we now have copper-bottomed confirmation that Guernsey’s system of government is irretrievably broken. This isn’t ‘same old’ point-scoring by the way. It was an acknowledgement from the highest level that trying to move the island forward is now impossible.

During the two-hour session, it became clear that policy disagreements have stalled progress at the centre of government, preventing progress on tackling mission-critical issues such as runaway health costs, the housing crisis, funding long-term care and even the review of the machinery of government or trying to get a decent investment return on the island’s nest egg.

Step back a bit and reflect. The previous P&R, under the Ferbrache-Helyar-Mahoney axis, began this States session with an effective parliamentary majority but failed to deal with any of the big ticket items – particularly tax and spend – and were forced to hand the baton over to a new team under Lyndon Trott.

Despite having a clear mandate from the Assembly as a make-things-happen interim chief minister, not even the arch-facilitator has been able to bring people together sufficiently to make real progress in areas that potentially pose existential risks for the island.

Indeed, the latest headline is that this States has now run out of time to make significant changes to the way it operates to break through some of this paralysis and even Deputy Trott’s No. 2, Heidi Soulsby, has pledged to die in a trench to stop executive government.

Oh god. Not executive government again! Yes, I share your pain – that old chestnut once more. Like island-wide voting, GST or selling granny’s house to pay for her dementia care, these things split this community to the point where compromise (AKA ‘good old Guernsey consensus’) simply isn’t possible.

For what it’s worth, my belief is that executive government is a dead duck. The closest we got to it was back in 2004 when the Harwood reforms were a hot topic, but the States eviscerated the proposals and recent political antics mean it’s further away than ever. Why? Because people eye-balled those who’d like to be in charge and really didn’t like what they saw.

So with the starting gun fired on the next general election – as this newspaper headlined it, ‘What are we voting for?’ – we must indeed ask what, exactly, are we voting for? Look at the items I mention here and clearly manifestos like Al Brouard’s delightful ‘I do not want to see substantial changes but I am equally aware that some change is necessary’ aren’t going to cut it.

That said, however, whatever the election brings, the community will remain split on these topics unless or until a decision is taken and implemented.

So, two suggestions to end the current policy paralysis. The first requires elector participation. The second, tweaks to the machinery of government.

So instead of voting for a candidate because you like the cut of their jib, your cross goes to whoever ticks the most boxes on the policy to-do list I’ve outlined here. The difficulty, obviously, is that it requires pre-determining election issues and demands that candidates declare their hands. Not a problem for some, but it will be for others.

The news outlets, I imagine, will be happy to canvass islanders ahead of next June to help draw up a list of top 10 topics – assisted dying will be there – and ask candidates what their voting intentions will be.

Yes, it’s a bit blunt but in the absence of political parties and group manifestos, how else are you to make an informed choice of candidate unless there’s a read-across individual manifestos? The clincher in whether you select them is whether they’re for or against, say, compulsory house sales for funding long-term health care.

The other change required is in the committees themselves. There needs to be a presumption that a 3-2 majority means a binding decision has been reached and that full collective responsibility then kicks in. So all five members support it to the hilt. Unable to do so? Fine, you resign. No minority reports, no guerrilla wrecking moves.

As Deputy Bob Murray revealed at the Scrutiny hearing of the machinery of government review stalling: ‘I think it’s unlikely P&R would unanimously support something. There are different views around the table, which is obviously challenging.’

Not under the 3-2 majority rule it isn’t. A majority view could be reached and that same presumption of collective responsibility would apply to the Assembly itself. Argue out a narrow majority in favour of GST and that’s it. In it comes, supported by all (or at least not actively hindered by opponents). Unlike today’s yo-yo approach.

Before you mention it, yes, there is a certain naivety in these suggestions, but consider this. This Assembly has gone way beyond ‘worst ever’ and is simply the States of Inaction. Delay on health reforms, building homes or repairing States finances merely makes things worse. And there is no magic wand, no compromise that will please all yet painlessly fix the problem.

Thus far, the problem hasn’t been identifying the issues, it’s been on agreeing how to resolve them. And that’s because you and I don’t agree on the best way forward – like over Aurigny or a better runway – and the States itself merely reflects that split.

It follows, therefore, that to break the island’s cycle of paralysis the system of reaching a decision has to be refined, that progress isn’t dependent on consensus or that mystical unicorn compromise coming to our rescue.

It does mean, of course, that things that you and I disagree with will happen, but we’re adults and accept the majority decision. And at least something (at this stage, anything) will have been put in train. A way of ending the cycle of inaction.

Well, you’ll have your own views on whether any of this makes sense – do please share them with me via newsroom@guernseypress.com – but I’ll say this. I’m sure you’d prefer a States of collective responsibility to that of executive government.