Consensus – but only by agreement
Friday 15th January 2010, 2:35PM GMT.
A PUBLIC meeting last evening was part of a wide-ranging consultative process embarked upon by the Public Accounts Committee as it seeks to put together proposals aimed at rectifying the gaps in good governance that were highlighted last September by the Wales Audit Office.
While that process might be open to a degree of criticism – since the WAO has identified the failures, its expert team can readily propose solutions – there is much merit in asking islanders and their representatives what they want.
There is, at least in certain quarters, an almost pathological objection to anything that smacks of executive government and there will be a much wider view that a Guernsey problem demands an island answer. In turn, that is more likely to emerge from speaking to those directly involved.
Beyond that, a consultative process also provides an opportunity to explain in more detail what the WAO report is discussing and why it is important for the island to be able to demonstrate good governance.
So is it inevitable that any machinery of government improvements will require conceding executive powers? The short answer is no.
Much of the current difficulty stems from an almost total lack of responsibility and accountability at political and officer level, which is reflected within the States as a whole.
No matter how exhaustively an issue has been debated, no matter what decisions have been taken, a determined group of individuals can overturn years of work and cost the taxpayer a fortune. Environment’s refusal to carry out the States instruction on paid parking is a classic example.
Whatever reforms are introduced, they have to address two issues: delegation and discipline. For the Assembly to be effective – and perhaps more importantly, to be seen to be effective – it has to delegate far more clearly the responsibility for implementing States policies and ministers and deputies have to accept far more readily the discipline of adhering to collectively reached decisions.
Ministers falling out with their Policy Council colleagues or members voting against their department’s own Billet d’Etat might make headlines but it is no way to provide effective government.
Consensus can work – but only if deputies have the self-discipline to accept the will of the majority.
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
The fact of the matter is that the poor turnout at last nights PAC meeting reflects the difference between the hysterical ramblings of the Guernsey Press and the publics view of Guernsey as their island home. Every population bar none will have something negative to say about their government, it is impossible to keep everyone happy all of the time, when I talk to people in the street some will say “Dave Guernsey is in a mess” when I press them to tell me in what way we are in a mess or what specific problems have been caused by dreadful government, they give very general answers, mostly along the lines of overspends that date back to before 2004. One chap in the Alliance food store said quite openly that he got the impression we were in a mess because that’s what he read in the Guernsey Press every day of the week. The daily press outrage at almost everything is most certainly not matched by public outrage on the ground and it is loosing them readers as a result. Most guests for instance on the BBC Sunday phone In struggle for callers to phone in with their questions, most are about the topic of the day, incinerators or paid parking or specific housing cases, dogs on beeches or more recently the snow. The Press letters page is the same individual topics that have upset one correspondent or another. Where are the thousands of people demonstrating in the streets about their islands government? You can certainly see it in Jersey on a regular basis with their wonderful new executive form of government.
There were 35 members of the public at last nights PAC meeting to discuss a report that has been described by the Press as “Damning”, enough you would think to get the people all fired up and out on a reasonably calm night to a venue with stacks of parking. Compare that to the turnout for Roger Perrot’s seminar to discuss external interference in our affairs, the place was packed with nearly 500 islanders in a hall (St James) where there is zero parking and not much in the immediate neighbourhood either. Guernsey people do not like being told what is best for them by people who come from countries that constantly under perform their own island, they look around them and they see all the first rate services we have in Guernsey the new schools and Health facilities, vergees of new modern social housing, almost full employment, a reasonably low crime rate, some of the lowest taxes and charges in the world, no external debt. All that and a natural environment to match many of the paradises on this earth. We have our problems and we will need to find funding to deal with several outstanding issues bur we bear no resemblance to the description of Guernsey proffered by the Guernsey Press. Politicians know it and the public knows it. When we have the debate on the WAO report some members will read and tell the States what Mr Colman really said in e-mails and conversations about how the Guernsey Press completely spun the report, It was never zero out of ten nor was it zero out of six. I also understand the Editor was told that last night in front of witnesses by Mr Colman from the WAO. He also said and I quote “Consensus government is not the obstacle to improving governance arrangements in Guernsey”. So the idea that we have to junk our system of government to make improvements is the wish of the Guernsey Press editorials not the head of the WAO.
Report abuse
“Much of the current difficulty stems from an almost total lack of responsibility and accountability at political and officer level, which is reflected within the States as a whole”.
The Press is always banging on about accountability but fails to see the irony of that stance. The Guernsey Press wields huge amounts of dominance and influence in a tiny community such as ours but its editor is not accountable to anyone. He wasn’t elected by the people of Guernsey, although he keeps trying to convince us that he and his paper speak for the people of this island. No they don’t, it is the opinion of one man. The paper can print whatever it likes slanted towards the Editors point of view, regardless of the accuracy of what it publishes and many in the island will take what is written as the truth.
Report abuse
Deputy Jones
Perhaps the poor turnout at the PAC meeting was influenced by the fact that the more astute observer is aware that just weeks after its criticism of the management of Guernsey’s administration, the WAO was itself severely criticised for shortcomings in its own internal management relations.
Case if the pot calling the kettle black???
Report abuse
The Press editorial above requires careful reading. At first it may appear another in a decade-long line of premeditated and largely unfounded attacks on the structure of Guernsey’s government. But in truth the writer actually seems to have chosen his words quite judiciously.
Much of it is accurate, too. It is important that the States demonstrates good governance, and it is valuable to consult widely and wisely before proposals for improvement are finalised. It is true that there exists – inside and outside the States – very deep and entirely plausible opposition to cabinet government. And plainly it is possible to establish effective governance arrangements broadly within the present structure of government by committees and consensus, so long as there is reform in the culture and operation of the States.
It is, though, a huge exaggeration to imply that there is no responsibility or accountability in politics. As Deputy Jones says, it is particularly ironic for unelected, unaccountable journalists to level such accusations at those who have to face the ballot box every four years, and who know that any of their actions and judgements could be challenged by colleagues at any time, ultimately by motions of no confidence.
But I agree that in practice accountability needs to be strengthened; States Resolutions should be more readily enforceable; and policies need to be pursued collectively and with courage once decisions have been reached after being debated democratically. The twin challenges of ‘delegation’ and ‘discipline’ sum it up quite neatly actually.
The editorial is misleading and/or misinformed in one crucial respect though: imposing collective responsibility on ministers and members of departmental boards would not strengthen the existing machinery of government, but cause its collapse. Collective responsibility for complying with States Resolutions is necessary, but precluding members from adopting minority positions within their boards and committees at the point of policy development and banning them from maintaining such positions publicly in debate in the Assembly is compatible only with party whips and cabinet government.
I am pleased that the editor has finally conceded that what he calls ‘consensus government’ can work – but he must understand that it’s not going to look at all like the Harwood-type executive model he has promoted in the past. It’s not just the labels of government by committees and consensus that must be retained, but the substance too, albeit reformed.
On the points raised by Deputy Jones, Press coverage of politics has to be put in context.
The media is not – and should not – be the chief cheerleader for government. Indeed, healthy coverage of politics probably should be quite confrontational and sometimes awkward for politicians. And, impressively, several thousand people choose to buy the Press every day. Equally, healthy media coverage of politics should include more depth and objectivity than we are familiar with in Guernsey. And the paper’s monopolistic stranglehold is a bit of a licence to manipulate public opinion.
So the media’s output shouldn’t be taken too seriously, especially not 300 words of personal comment, even if it does claim to be “the voice of islanders”. It is always well-written and thought-provoking and frequently amusing or hard-hitting, but rarely balanced, objective or proportionate. So long as those ‘rules of engagement’ are understood, it can be seen for what it is: tabloid journalism.
Report abuse