‘Tax debate was a pretty slow moving and turgid affair’

The return to duties of our frontline political correspondent, Matt Fallaize, gave me the welcome opportunity to snuggle back into semi-retirement last week.

Instead of reporting on the big tax debate in the States I could reclaim my work-life balance. So how did I use all of that precious free time? Mainly listening to the big tax debate in the States. Once a political anorak, always a political anorak, I suppose.

That said, it was a different type of listening. More detached, as I worked in my garden, pottered about in my greenhouses, and indulged in a bit of batch cooking. I think it gave me a more rounded, helicopter, view of proceedings. So – in the words of Eric and Ernie – what do I think of it so far?

It’s been a pretty slow moving and turgid affair. Two and a half days and only a handful amendments debated. So slow that many speculated whether the glacial progress was down to a deliberate filibuster. Well of course it was.

I know that Deputy Haley Camp described that as ‘a terrible allegation’ but that seems like hyperbole to me. I’ve been accused of a lot worse than that over the years. Filibustering is a political tactic which has been used in parliaments around the world since the dawn of democracy.

Some of those indulging in the tactic were far better at it than others. The adept spoke for the permitted 15 minutes on just about every amendment, and managed to ensure their speeches related to the subject matter.

The less-skilled only to managed to fill time by being completely tangential. Indeed, a few contributions seemed less like political oratory, and more like, to quote The Archers’ original tagline, ‘everyday tales of country folk.’ I am genuinely happy that Deputy Vermeulen enjoyed his year spent as a motorcycle mechanic back in the day, but quite what that had to do with the nuances of fiscal policy passed me by.

It was more interesting to observe who wanted proceedings completed by last Friday, and who wanted the big decisions, at the pointy end of the debate, held over until early October. It was very clear that those who supported the tax package wished to see business completed last week, whereas some, but not all, on the other side of the fence were hoping that it wouldn’t be. What does that tell us? Presumably that both ‘sides’ had calculated that if the key vote had been taken last Friday, the P&R package would probably have been approved.

Indeed P&R treasury lead Charles Parkinson seemed almost certain of that on leaving the chamber at close of play on Friday. Every vote so far had gone P&R’s way so they’d surely win at the end of the day – whenever that proves to be.

Maybe, but I think he is being a tad too sanguine. Certainly the anti-GST lobby didn’t have the votes to just scupper the package.

Whether it was by delaying motions, a referendum, or just proposing GST be taken off the table, they came up short every time. But that is not quite the same thing as getting a majority to positively vote for the package.

So we’ll be back at the very end of September and, in a move that I confess surprised me, it was ruled that fresh amendments could be laid to an item adjourned half way through being debated. So heavens knows what suggestions will be on the table in 10 weeks’ time.

I suspect Deputy Goy will be given a rapid lesson in how to draft amendments so that they do what he wants them to do.

His alternative package is clearly incapable of doing the fiscal heavy lifting required, but he is obviously convinced otherwise, and has done a lot of work on it. So I think it should be given its day in the sun, as a single package, proposed as an alternative to the official one on offer.

Talking of heavy lifting there were a few deputies last week who suggested that the 3% GST wouldn’t cut the mustard and the rate should be higher. I tend to agree. A 5% GST costs no more to administer, raises more revenues, and allows for better mitigations.

But if they really believe that, will they bring an amendment suggesting it?

Finally, will the States’ spending freeze, approved at the very end of last week’s debate, survive a fresh vote by a full chamber? It shouldn’t. If it had only applied to general revenue spending it would have been a tough ask.

But to deliberately include contributory benefits like the long-term care benefit and the States pension makes it wildly impractical.