ONE of the things this newspaper has been criticised for – and as recently as yesterday by a minister seeking reelection – is for allegedly having driven away quality candidates from standing in next month’s general election.
Some of the claims, which are extravagant even by the standards of parliamentary debate, touch on the difficulties created by the clinical block affair and no one doubts that was a particularly bruising period, but ultimately a one-off.
So for anyone pondering whether to stand or not, ‘Fallagate’ was simply not a consideration.
Running for election takes courage and commitment, with the ever-present risk of not finding favour with the electorate. It is not for the faint-hearted and all those who have declared as candidates deserve applause.
After all, it is not so many years ago that uncontested elections in at least some parishes were the norm, so something has kindled greater interest in local politics.
And rather than trying to apportion blame for any perceived problem with the field, the House might itself consider what would make becoming a deputy more attractive.
The key to it has to be job satisfaction and that must surely depend on members individually and collectively feeling a sense of achievement and of having improved things for islanders.
And even if the media spent until Christmas saying what a superb institution the States is, it would not persuade people that government is all it should be.
Whether this House is the worst ever is irrelevant. The point is that the accusation came from one of its own members and he had at least some ammunition to support the claim.
What this administration promised was joined-up government and, despite some successes, it has not lived up to the expectations that it created.
Perhaps a four-year horizon was over-ambitious but for government to be regarded as good, achievements have to be seen and felt.
And improving how things get done holds the key to attracting even more candidates.
Loading ...
2 Article Comments
The writer of the Comment criticises “Some of the claims, which are extravagant even by the standards of parliamentary debate…”
Then we have the ultimate of extravagant comments from the Comment scribe
“So for anyone pondering whether to stand or not, ‘Fallagate’ was simply not a consideration”
Looking at this last statement from a common sense point of view shows just how extreme it is. How on earth can the writer claim it was not a consideration. Full stop.
It is understandable that the Guernsey Press wants to trash any suggestion that some of the expected candidates steered away from the elections, because of the way the Press conducted a campaign against Laurie Morgan and others.
Whilst there are those who would support the Press stance on Fallagate there are certainly others who saw it as an unreasonable personal attack, and a riak too many for the possible candidate.
Surely any candidates and established ministers with integrity and a truthful nature would have little to fear from the papers.
Yes, people may try to prove guilt by association or drag you down but ultimately if people are willing to strive for a progressive government for the island, abide by the rules and take notice of best practice then there would be less for the papers to dig at.
You have to accept there will be endless mud flung by journalists as that is the way to sell papers but much less will stick if people have been doing their jobs properly and ultimately acting in the best interests of the island and its residents.