LIKE most politicians, I am impressed by those in politics who possess longevity.

By that yardstick, one of the great politicians of our generation is the Rt Hon. Ken Clarke MP, former Chancellor and Home Secretary and now the opposition business spokesman.

I was very pleased, then, to meet Ken last week at the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester.

He was brought back into the shadow cabinet by David Cameron in January of this year to add experience and authority to the Conservative team. Ken reminisced about his dealings with Guernsey when he was Home Secretary in the early 1990s, when he was responsible for managing the UK’s relationship with the Crown Dependencies. It was a pleasure to meet him and I was delighted to hear that he retains such a strong affection for and interest in our island.

My meeting with Ken built on the work I have undertaken at both the Conservative and Labour Party Conferences. Attending these events is invaluable. While in Manchester I also met a range of MPs, peers and their special advisers to educate them about Guernsey’s people and its economy.

Over two packed days at the Labour conference I met key figures in government during a series of face-to-face meetings. This included three of the Treasury ministerial team as well as Lord Bach, the minister with current responsibility for the UK’s relationship with the Crown Dependencies.

Participating in these events isn’t simply about raising Guernsey’s profile. It’s also about breaking down misconceptions. And that is best done by targeting the people who have the most influence over the development of policy that most directly affects, or could affect, Guernsey’s citizens.

The party conferences are effective in allowing a lot of important meetings in a short space of time. But they are only one part of the engagement strategy that works to ensure that the interests of all of Guernsey’s communities are protected and championed. It is why the States makes such engagement a priority for the External Relations Group, directing a senior ambassador to represent Guernsey both proactively and reactively.

The meetings in the UK have not distracted me from domestic issues, which remain my priority. Many of you will know that an extremely important report on Guernsey’s governance was published last month. The States of Guernsey’s Public Accounts Committee commissioned the WAO Good Governance Report.

I welcomed its publication and I concur with its conclusions.

The report highlights the deficiencies in the current system of governance that must be addressed. These are fundamental structural deficiencies, which often individuals do not have the resource or discipline to overcome. It shows the States is neither directed nor controlled as a single corporate entity, but instead acts as a collection of autonomous departments that choose if or when they submit to corporate policy.

Those departments exercise executive power, but the Policy Council lacks authority to impose a strategic focus on them. Instead the council has to rely on achieving consensus between semi-autonomous departments, something that is impossible to deliver consistently. This also means that the chief minister is reliant on exercising authority through force of personality alone.

This lack of enforceable political leadership is detrimental to effective governance – it undermines strategic focus and effective decision-making, and means the current offices of chief minister, minister and chief executive lack authority to act and effectively hold others to account.

Hard decisions need to be taken by Guernsey’s politicians to address these issues. The States Strategic Plan and the Fundamental Spending Review are early opportunities to do that.

From the first time I read the WAO governance report, my view has been that the States should thoroughly debate the report, even though it contains no recommendations. That debate would, in my view, lead to an obvious conclusion.

It is time for Harwood 2. But do enough of my colleagues share that view?