BOTH ‘conviction politics’ and ‘listening politics’ are positive terms and regarded by most as being good traits in their representatives. The trouble is that there can often be a real tension between the two. Should politicians fight tirelessly for what they sincerely believe is best for their community?

Or should they be a sort of human weathervane, spinning with the latest blasts of public opinion?

At one end of the spectrum you have those Senators who supported President Obama in extending health care insurance, knowing full well it could cost them their seats in the mid-term elections. Despite the wave of public opinion against what many Americans regarded as the unacceptable face of ‘big government’, they stood firm. Despite the vitriol poured out by the ultra-right-wing ‘Tea Party Movement’ and ‘shock jocks’ on America’s talk radio stations, they didn’t waver. Even the pollsters’ predictions that voting in favour could end their political careers didn’t stop them.

Why were they so dogged? Well, despite our ingrained cynicism towards politicians everywhere, I genuinely believe that they put what they felt was right ahead of personal interest. They reasoned that it was better to achieve something real and substantial in their political careers, benefiting tens of millions of their fellow citizens, than to spend a lifetime in politics so scared of their own shadows that they never made a real difference.

At the other end of the spectrum you have the classic career politician’s cliché – ‘those are my policies – if you don’t like them I’ve got plenty more’.

In other words, it’s not their job to lead the political process, or to use their judgement and analytical skills on behalf of their constituents, but simply to reflect public opinion as they perceive it.

At its most extreme, this can lead to politicians voting completely contrarily to what they believe is in their community’s best interest in order to placate public sentiment, or the media, which may both be less well informed than they are.

Instead of taking the hard route of advocating for difficult but necessary policies, they just test the wind and jump accordingly.

Am I saying that politicians – including Guernsey deputies – should be insensitive to public opinion? Not at all. They should engage with the public, listen to their views and take them into account in reaching their own conclusions. There are some issues where public sentiment should be the main determinant of how they vote. There are others which must be matters of conscience for the deputy concerned. Then there are technical issues, where they have a duty to research the matter carefully and come to a reasoned decision.

The key thing is that any final decision reflects a genuinely held belief about what is in Guernsey’s best interest. To wilfully vote contrary to that judgement, just to avoid criticism, is despicable political weakness.

Let’s take the example of the rubbish debate. There were four basic camps in that debacle.

First there were those who sincerely believed that the Suez solution was best for Guernsey and who fought consistently for it throughout. This group was led by Deputy Spruce and he came in for a lot of flak for doing so. I thought he deserved praise. He showed great tenacity in fighting his corner and was clearly advocating what he thought was in Guernsey’s best interest.

I hope that in retrospect, even those who profoundly disagreed with his policies will give him credit for that – although he’s rather spoilt his principled stance by doing a U-turn on resigning from PSD.

The second group were those deputies who have been against incineration from the start. While I still struggle to understand their viable alternative I give them credit for voting in what they believed were Guernsey’s best interests.

The third group were those who genuinely changed their minds. They may not have voted contrary to their best judgement but with no new facts, this group must be very indecisive by nature. Their vacillation cost the taxpayers many millions compared with rejecting incineration earlier.

The last group were those who initially supported Suez, and who still believed it was the best option for Guernsey, but who changed their vote (not their minds) to avoid catching it hot with a significant opposition lobby.

These are the political weathervanes who came out of the process with no credit. Alas, they appeared to include both our chief minister and his deputy.

That bodes ill for the future.