Advocates, for example, would surely lose with a wishy washy argument that twists and turns indecisively.
Similarly, politicians arguing in favour of a particular proposition, or standing for election, wouldn’t get very far if they can’t make others believe in them too.
And us columnists wouldn’t last very long if we didn’t focus and structure our arguments effectively to get our points across.
But, this week, indecisiveness and a lack of clarity is exactly my point.
You see, I’m pretty confused about what exactly has been going on with our Council of Ministers.
They’ve gone from never being able to do anything right because they wouldn’t listen to other people – the old ivory tower criticism – to changing their minds like the wind changes direction just because someone turns their nose up.
From start to finish the whole new hospital saga has exposed a Council of Ministers that is in turmoil.
Yesterday’s decision to once again delay debate on how the project will be funded to give Members more time to consider the various options is just the latest twist in the tale. And it adds further fuel to my argument.
You see, ministers are doing exactly what we’ve begged them to do for so long – listening to others.
This is where the main crux of my confusion comes from. I want them to listen, and genuinely believe that a strong government is one that is capable of working with, rather than against, others.
But, I’ve discovered, there does also need to be balance. And right now it would appear things have tipped from one extreme to the other.
Take the site for the new hospital – at first Ministers were steadfast in their support of the People’s Park as the preferred option. It was the best for all sorts of reasons, they said.
Then they scrapped the site at the last minute just before a debate on Constable Simon Crowcroft’s proposition to leave the park alone. That was an important victory for people power, and a reminder that actually Islanders can make a difference if they get involved in local debates. However, if it really was the best site shouldn’t our Council of Ministers – the people elected to lead on our behalf and who have the greatest access to professional support and advice – have pushed a little harder? Or at least defended their argument on record in the States?
We know that ministers were not united in their support for the site, and it is understood that tensions between some of those round the top table remain.
Perhaps that partly explains the lack of a clear, solid argument to stick to.
It is the same with the funding for the new hospital. Ministers came up with a proposal (borrow up to £400 million and pay the rest from the Strategic Reserve) and were insistent in those first few months that it was truly the very best option based on top-class expert advice.
But in January the States shelved the debate on that proposal during a sitting described as ‘shambolic’ by many in the House. The matter was referred to the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel, which then a few months later came up with its own proposal – to use the Strategic Reserve to pay for the whole lot, with a plan to repay the fund. Ministers continued to say that their way was the best way and should be supported so that the Health Department could get on with the important job of actually providing a new hospital. But by then something had changed and Treasury Minister Alan Maclean and co were content to once again shelve the debate to ‘give Members more time’.
What the CoM didn’t say at the time, however, was that the minister would be lodging an amendment to his proposals to clarify a few things and enact a change which would mean the Island could borrow less than £300 million.
Senator Maclean is now talking about borrowing £275 million, and using the Strategic Reserve for the rest, something he says is possible because of the Island’s better-than-forecast financial position. He also says that it was also the plan to allow for borrowing of less than £400 million if possible.
You see, not only are the actual facts themselves confusing (think amendments to amendments and the minister amending his own proposal, which had been amended by a successful amendment from Constable Chris Taylor), but so too are the politics behind the scenes.
What exactly is going on back there? And why? Because while all of this has been going on there has been little in the way of rallying calls from the top – no grand statements from the Chief Minister, the Health Minister has refused to comment ahead of any debate and even the Treasury Minister has only responded in such fashion when asked to by this newspaper.
Where is the united front? The communications strategy? The strength, passion and power befitting of a Council of Ministers on the verge of making some real headway on such an historic project.
Of course, there are risks associated with all the funding options on the table, but it is the job of an effective government to be open about that, but then reassure the public that it is in their interests. After all if it’s not, then they would not be proposing it. But that’s not what we have been getting.
Type indecisive into an internet search engine and the synonyms that come back include: hesitant, tentative, weak, iffy, uncommitted, sitting on the fence, waffly, and shilly-shallying.
And we really cannot afford – financially and otherwise – to dilly dally our way into the biggest capital project in Jersey’s history.
