‘TAKING the difficult decisions to balance Guernsey’s budget will be a real test of the island’s system of consensus government. If the States succeeds, it will have proven itself. If not, then we clearly need executive government.’

This sort of statement is becoming popular currency in some political, business and media circles. It sounds plausible but logical examination of the stance shows it to be complete nonsense.

Worse, it is little more than shameful opportunism by those who have always wanted the island run by a small, all-powerful cabinet.

They were frustrated when the States – and the whole island – overwhelmingly rejected the idea last time around. Ever since, they have waited for the ‘right sort of crisis’ to come along to justify renewing their calls for UK-style, top-down politics.

I don’t doubt their sincerity, but disagree profoundly with their thinking. At the very least, Guernsey needs to think carefully and dispassionately before throwing away a long-established system which involves all elected members in policy-making. Once gone, it would be gone forever.

Such an irrevocable step should not be contemplated in the heat of a row over fiscal policy, any more than in reaction to the airport fiasco. That would be like marrying on the rebound.

There’s no doubt the challenge of balancing the books will be a major test of this States, but it’s far less an examination of the system of government than of the moral fibre of individual members.

Raising taxes and cutting spending is difficult, unpopular and painful. If the majority of deputies put ‘not upsetting anybody’ ahead of doing the right thing, then we are in real trouble – whatever our system of government.

It’s not the first time Guernsey has found itself in financial difficulties and needing to cut its cloth accordingly. When I entered the States in 1982, unemployment was much higher than it is now.

Today we are trying to cope with giving up corporation tax at a time when economic growth has stalled. Then we had much deeper structural problems and our biggest economic sector had gone into almost terminal decline.

How did the States cope then? Did its leaders say: ‘We can’t manage without more and more centralised power’?

No – they showed natural leadership.

They were prepared to live with a degree of personal unpopularity and animosity, knowing that the thinking part of the population would understand what they were doing and why.

They took their colleagues with them, not by wielding crude power, but by persuasion and force of personality.

If there’s a danger that today’s States will fall short of their predecessors’ achievements in coping with adversity, then it’s nothing to do with the system but because they lack the collective calibre and courage.

Hopefully they will manage to surprise us and rise to the challenge. If not, then the idea that bringing in executive government will cure their lack of backbone is absurd. Nor will it suddenly make Deputies Trott and Parkinson see eye to eye on the correct approach to fiscal and economic policy, delivering a new clarity and unity of approach.

In fact, a cabinet system, without parties and the discipline that (normally) goes with them, could increase divisions and tensions. Jersey is a case in point.

Supporters argue that the chief minister could resolve policy differences by sacking dissidents. In reality, with limited talent available, that doesn’t work. Deputy Trott sacks Deputy Parkinson because of irreconcilable differences over fiscal policy and replaces him with … who?

Full-blown party politics would be even worse. Firstly, you squander up to half of your limited talent on opposition.

Secondly, it is just so ‘un-Guernsey’ that it would be a complete turn-off for many good potential candidates. Intelligent, principled islanders wanting to give something back to their community may want nothing to do with joining parties, with their inevitable power games and leadership cults.

The answer to Guernsey’s current budgetary woes lies not with new ‘political systems’ but with us all adopting a more realistic mindset after years of plenty. It’s important that our representatives make the right decisions, however tough, and it’s vital that we allow them to do so and stop demanding our penny and our bun.

If not, then a mountain of debt will be just one of the unfortunate legacies.

The other will be being bounced into a less democratic system of government – forever.