In his Press article of 3 April, Deputy Roffey was right to criticise an open letter that called for a change in Guernsey’s political system, for having failed to define ‘executive government’.
This failing allowed him to interpret the letter as he wished, which he did by inventing a grotesquely unworkable version of the system he assumed it proposed, before scathingly picking it apart.
I shall not fall into the same trap of guessing what that letter meant, but shall instead focus on Deputy Roffey’s absurd defence of the status quo.
Because to say it is not the system but the membership of the States that is to blame for its shortcomings is indeed absurd. No serving deputy has ever offered a list of precisely which candidates should not have been elected in 2020. Nor would they, since it would amount to blaming the electorate – the people they represent – for their poor government – which is absurd.
To suggest that voter choice should be based on certain ‘qualities’ in a candidate is also absurd. No two deputies, nor indeed any two members of the electorate, would ever be able to agree what those ‘qualities’ should be, how to measure them, how they relate to policy, or how they might lead to better collective decision-making.
To suggest that the problem has arisen only during this latest term is absurd. Successive Assemblies have been dubbed as ‘the worst States ever’ for decades, this being one of the catalysts for the Harwood Report 25 years ago.
To imply that the problem arises only from island-wide voting is absurd. Electing politicians based on personal characteristics worked no better in previous elections, when islanders had a say in only 14% – or less – of the composition of the States.
And to suggest that our systemic problems can be solved merely by reducing the number of deputies by five is also absurd – it would not make a jot of difference.
Deputy Roffey is no fool. He has long had my respect, and that of a large proportion of the electorate, as a hard-working and committed politician. So why did he make all these absurd statements in his article?
Notwithstanding the fact that he is not seeking election in June, it is no doubt because he supports a system that has granted him complete independence of thought both as a candidate and as a serving States member. The majority, if not all, of his serving colleagues feel the same. But for many years a room full of independents unable to form a consensus or establish a clear direction of travel is not what Guernsey needs or deserves by way of government.
Our only hope is that for future elections more political movements, similar to that recently in the news, will enter the fray. What we need is competition between ideas, to replace the directionless and undignified competition between personalities that is so poorly serving us at present.
Nigel De La Rue
Vale
You need to be logged in to comment. If you had an account on our previous site, you can migrate your old account and comment profile to this site by visiting this page and entering the email address for your old account. We'll then send you an email with a link to follow to complete the process.