AS 2010 draws to a close, it’s a good time to look back at the political year gone by and speculate on the likely highlights/lowlights of 2011.

The dominant theme of both the old year and the new will almost certainly be the same. ‘It’s the economy, stupid.’ How could it be anything else, with a sizable budget deficit and a corporate tax regime that breaches the EU code of conduct? Not to mention a team of consultants looking under every public sector stone for potential savings – of which they’ll be paid 6%.

Perhaps the big difference between 2010 and 2011 is that Guernsey must surely move on from its ‘wait and see’ response to the hole in the States revenue budget. As part of that change of gear, Treasury and Resources will publish a Green Paper on the island’s future corporate tax structure. The difficulty in coming up with exactly the right package is that we still don’t know what our rivals are planning to do.

Some have interpreted the recent rejection of zero-10 by the EU as meaning that the whole project is dead in the water. But it’s clear that Jersey – and in particular its Treasury minister – doesn’t see it that way. The thrust of the criticism was over the different treatment of locally-owned and non-locally-owned businesses. It seems that Jersey will try to overcome that objection and still retain a zero rate of corporation tax. That’s a shame, as it is unlikely to succeed in the long term and it will make it harder for both bailiwicks to tackle their ‘black holes’.

Two other themes will straddle the old and new years. The first is rubbish disposal and the second is voting reform.

Rubbish is now becoming a really acute, strategic consideration for Guernsey. Having rumbled on for decades as a political issue, with several false starts, our backs are definitely coming up against the wall. The Public Services Department is determined that whatever solution it puts forward in 2011 must enjoy popular support. Alas, it will fail in this respect. That’s not a particular criticism – just a realisation that there are so many camps over this issue that there is no solution that will enjoy universal acclaim.

The sooner the department homes in on the realistic alternatives and braces itself to upset certain lobbies, the better. Its job is to find a workable way forward, not to avoid brickbats or controversy.

Of course, 2011 will also be the year when we get yet another debate on island-wide voting. Some will favour electing 45 deputies island-wide, all at the same time. Most will realise that this is so utterly impractical that no sane deputy could really advocate it. Unless of course they did so knowing they were bound to lose, but wanting to tell the electorate they were the person ‘who bravely tried to get island-wide voting’.

The total impracticality of electing all deputies island-wide will almost certainly spawn a whole raft of half-way houses, each more potty than the last. I wonder if any deputy will be willing to do the decent thing and propose what is clearly needed – the current system but with fewer deputies?

‘How do you vote on Christmas, Deputy Turkey?’

‘Contre.’

Talking of constitutional issues, it seems that there will be a new issue to debate next year. Following Sark’s forced reform of the position of Seneschal, the dual role of Jersey’s Bailiff has come under the spotlight. It’s been found to be in need of reform by an external review and it seems the UK Ministry of Justice is taking a close interest in what happens next. So should we.

Of course, the position of Guernsey’s Bailiff is almost identical to Jersey’s, so what applies to one applies to the other.

I made clear in a recent column that, while the dual roles are undoubtedly wrong in constitutional theory, it’s hard to think of an alternative that would work better.

That is still my position, but perhaps it’s worth adding a caveat.

If Jersey follows Sark and removes its Bailiff from the States, we will look very isolated.

We will then be under considerable pressure to conform to international norms over the separation of powers.

The States should then choose between two distinct paths.

Either it should resist those pressures come hell or high water, or should agree to reform straight away.

Initial macho posturing followed by a humiliating climbdown would be the worst of all worlds.