IN LAST week’s column I was musing on the island’s dislike of the idea of party politics.

I share the distrust of a regimented system of government where deputies would be expected to pretend to share their party’s policies on important issues in order to show their loyalty.

It’s called party discipline, but it’s really dissembling. Such dishonesty is justified on the basis that without collective responsibility, it would be impossible to implement a coherent government programme.

It’s certainly true that while the party approach may be anathema to Guernsey, our own consensus model of politics has plenty of shortcomings, too – conflicting policies, lack of strategic planning and frequent U-turns, to name just three.

Let’s consider the last of these traits in greater depth. States members have always had a tendency to change their minds quite a lot, but these days the tendency to U-turn is becoming really endemic.

Whether it’s paid parking, waste disposal or Sunday trading, attempts to make definitive decisions often tend to become long-running soap operas.

This month, the States is going to sink to a new low in relation to this time-wasting habit of considering exactly the same issues over and over again.

Just three months ago, our government decided to outlaw cigarette vending machines. Some islanders will think that was the right move and some will think it was wrong. Three things are, however, beyond doubt.

1. It was a clear decision taken after all of the arguments about lack of consultation had been made by opponents during the debate.

2. It was in keeping with the clear direction of travel in relation to tobacco policy – both in Guernsey and elsewhere.

3. It was not a big issue of principle that justifies constant revisiting on the basis that fundamental freedoms are at stake.

Those supporting the re-debate will argue that an amendment was the wrong vehicle by which to make such a decision.

Ideally, I suppose, every decision should be made on the basis of an informed report containing all the pros and cons.

However, amendments are a fact of life, an important part of the democratic process, and have been used to resolve far more important matters than vending machines for cigarettes.

Former deputy Mike Torode’s infamous amendment to the 11-plus debate springs to mind.

I seem to recall that the leader of the current requete felt quite able to support that on-the-hoof policy-making but now argues that what was sauce for the goose shouldn’t be sauce for the gander.

The real question for deputies at the end of this month is: if they do perform a U-turn on vending machines, what will that really achieve in the long term?

Look back a decade and consider what the attitudes towards smoking were then.

People puffed away in restaurants and cafes and the idea of legal restrictions on smoking seemed absurd.

Now try crystal-ball-gazing and consider what the attitude might be in 10 years’ time, with a dwindling number of smokers and an increasingly strident medical establishment calling for tighter restrictions.

Do our lawmakers really believe that if they change their minds and allow vending machines to continue that the decision will hold for the long term?

They should then ask themselves another question. If this uncontrolled way of selling cigarettes is doomed to disappear before too long, then what the heck is the point in vacillating?

They have already had the courage to make a firm decision, so why go back on it knowing that decision will almost certainly have to be remade in a few years’ time?

Trying to predict the way the States will vote is a mug’s game, but it really would be a turn up for the books (and a new low) if it voted to overturn this decision.

Those who believed it was the right decision last time round have no reason to change their minds and they’ll be joined in voting contre by those who are embarrassed by the States’ reputation for being unable to make up its mind.

The result surely will be a sizable no vote.

So what will have been achieved by this requete, other than to take up the time of a House which has more important issues to tackle?

The answer is nothing except, maybe, to lower the reputation of the States even further.

The 10 petitioners have every right to bring this motion but, as the expression goes, with rights go responsibilities.