1

Steven

Alistair, if you were a Guernseyman you would be a bit peeved that a respected journalist drew an assumtion regarding our politics from conversations with politicians and businessmen.

The reason for this is, contrary to the business and some politicians perspective, our politicians are representatives of the people of Guernsey. As such should be working impartialy for the benefit of society.

Ironically, business via the Institute of Directors and the Chamber of Commerce feel that they have the answers to the shortcomings highlighted by the Welsh Audit Office. They are primarily suggesting that an executive government would be preferred. Yes it probably would be for them, but it’s not their government it’s the peoples government. They (the IoD and CoC) don’t have a corporate vote.

It almost seems that we are being coerced into the misconception that government is a business with the overuse of the word ‘corporate’. Indeed I beleive that some of our politicians think of themselves as businessmen in the execution of their office.

However there is a major difference between politics and business and that is that business is primarily concerned with profit whereas a politician should be primarily concerned with serving society.

Possibly the Welsh Audit Offices findings wouldn’t be quite so scathing if our politicians focused on society more and the lobbying of businessmen less.

Report abuse

3

Horace

Alistair Stewart probably should have greater concerns over his own country’s government. If Mr Brown woke up this morning and was told the national debt was at zero, unemployment was almost nil, state pensions were fully funded, there was a rainy day fund, he wasn’t at war with anyone and educational and health facilities were more than adequate then I believe he would be a happy man. For Mr Brown it is a dream for Mr Trott it is real. We achieved our success by consensus they made their mess by executive government. Enough said!

Report abuse

5

Tom Wright

The general tone of Mr Stewart’s comments seemed to suggest that he had some deeper relationship with the Island other than a speaker’s fee. But apparently he has not, so it is perhaps spurious to attach any importance to what he has said from gossip. I would like to repeat my view that all proposals since and including Harwood are all the while ‘china to a blood orange’. Island wide voting in its purest sense is an essential prerequisite. It is irritating in the extreme that we hear no mention of this from those who think they are significant enough to pass comment or even influence the States including the WAO who many seem to revere. My view is that we should ask for our money back as there is a serious omission in their review. To give increased executive powers to individuals who end up in the States under the present system of election is, frankly, crazy. For example both the chief minister and his deputy aspired to their well paid jobs following a trouncing in their parish polls. It is certain that an Island wide vote would have sunk them without trace. There is a gaping hole in our claim to democracy where candidates can choose their parishes but voters are captive and sectional.. Our budgets are much bigger now and require the best people to handle them. These are more likely to emerge by the widest possible plebiscite rather their slipping in through the ‘parish door’. It matters not that the constituency system operates in the UK and there are similarities in principle but this may change too. Where it is possible for every voter to participate in the election of each one of their lawmakers then it must be installed. Beyond doubt, an essential requirement before we bestow any executive powers – in my view..

Every Islander should have a voting power for each

Report abuse

7

TL

It is strange that this comments attributed to Alastair Stewart bear no relation to the astute and perceptive way in which he chaired the IoD debate.

Or maybe it isn’t that strange, since this is the GP reporting what it wants rather than presenting a balanced impartial view. I would not be surprised if the emphasis placed by Alastair Stewart when making this remark (quite probably in response to a direct question) has been greatly exaggerated.

I thought that the IoD debate was pretty measured on this point. There was dissatisfaction with the system but no united call for a particular course of action.

One contributor from the floor gave an illuminating example of his experiences of Bermuda, where executive government has led to radicalisation of politics.

I am not sure that the business community is united in a call for executive government (I know I am not). Ironically, the perceived benefits of executive government could make matter worse unless the composition of the States changes – at least the current lot rarely make their bad decisions. Give them executive power and who knows what will happen.

Yes, the WAO report needs to be considered, but I wish that the GP would stop its crusade for an undemocratic system of executive government. As Alastair Stewart says above, the job of a journalist is to find out what people feel – not tell them your own agenda. Take note GP.

Report abuse

9

Dave Jones

Stephen

Ministers have discussed the WAO report at Policy Council on several occasions. No Ministers to my knowledge have any problems with having this report debated in the States. I welcome the opportunity to do that, as it will give the States the chance to dissect this report and examine what steps need to be taken to improve corporate governance. The reason we are not all getting hysterical about this report is that it has to be taken together with all the other reports the States have commissioned, from the Robinson report on the Civil service the Shepley report on planning, Tribal Helms fundamental spending review and the WAO report. I would also suggest that Guernsey operates a lot more efficiently than you might imagine when TH first announced their initial impressions of our islands administration they told the world that they had identified over 300 ways the States could save money, however once the review started to look at our administration in detail by the second phase of the review that had come down to 112 the final report now say that we need to scrap the bus service, the subsidy to farmers, close our infant schools in fact many of the things the States has debated on several occasions. The WAO report does not make any recommendations, it just says in a fairly flimsy document that they interviewed a hundred or so people in the administration and each one identified areas where things could improve. Some of the report astonishingly is predicated on the fact that we DON’T have Cabinet government something the WAO should have been aware of before they started. For example 1.62 says “There is a lack of clarity over the roles and responsibilities of those within leadership offices, ie:

a The Chief Minister
b Departmental ministers (Policy Council members): and
c The Chief Executive, Deputy Chief Executive and departmental Chief officers
(Chief officers Group members)

It goes on 1.63

While those holding these offices have notional status, they lack authority to act and are therefore neither accountable nor capable of holding others to account.

Well first of all it is the departmental Boards that are accountable and history shows that several have been sacked by the States in the past when the house felt they have failed in their task. As for Ministers they work with their elected boards to formulate policy for presentation through the billet’s to the States of Deliberation.
Those boards and their members including the Minister who leads the department are also accountable to the States. States members have the power to remove any Minister from their post by a vote of no confidence and they can if they wish dismiss the whole Policy Council if the States as a whole sees fit. Chief officers are accountable to their individual boards and for making sure that departmental staff under them deliver the policies of the States and departmental mandates, on top of that they are their to advise Ministers and board members on a whole range of issues, bring the board up to speed on inter departmental initiatives, operational matters and progress on the different work streams that board policy has agreed. My chief officer is in no doubt whatsoever what his job is or to whom he is accountable. My point is that this illustration shows that the WAO simply do not understand our government structure and therefore the have assumed that as it is not like theirs it must be flawed. As Stephen John says you can look on the States web site and go through it yourself you will see that the report is littered with all kinds of assumptions and misconceptions that on closer scrutiny seem to centre around our consensus system.

Report abuse