When the left doesn't like what the right's doing

Everything was going perfectly, and the smells from the kitchen were drawing appropriate cooing sounds from his friends. Having done all of this, he turned his attention to the gravy. Being in somewhat of a rush to thin out the lumps, he grabbed a sieve and tipped the jug of gravy through it into the sink.

He told us the story, I think, because he had enough about him to be able to stand in front of a roomful of kids and laugh at the image of himself holding a sieve full of lumps and watching his delicious gravy disappear down the plughole.

I won’t name him, because he’s a good teacher and a good bloke and he’s got a big responsible job now. And besides, he might find all this embarrassing.

The stories this week about allowing politicians to sit on the Electoral Commission reminded me of my hapless teacher. Like him, the States appear to have all the right tools in front of them, but don’t seem to have figured out that it’s still possible to mess the whole thing up if you get things done in the wrong order.

Having set up the commission with the expressed purpose of taking the question of States reform out of the hands of politicians, does it not seem a touch perverse to put them in charge of the commission that they’re not meant to be involved in?

And that’s why I found myself thinking strange thoughts about former Deputy Daniel Wimberley this week, when he spoke to defend the original purpose of his Electoral Commission proposition and to protest against the idea of politicians sitting on it, and particularly to Senator Philip Bailhache chairing it.

The former Deputy is, of course, right. Absolutely, completely, and utterly right. But that’s pretty obvious, and it’s not very interesting.

What is much more interesting is that he’s probably right for the wrong reason.

The ‘probably’ there is quite important, and it’s because the States reform argument is one in which principle is everywhere to be heard and nowhere to be seen.

But I find it very hard to believe that the Deputy would protest so strongly were it someone with whom he largely agreed being lined up to take on the job, rather than someone with whom he largely disagrees.

He might not agree with that assessment, and that’s fair enough. If I were him, I probably wouldn’t agree either.And therein lies the actual story here.

The States aren’t rubbish because they have failed to get reform sorted: they’ve failed to get reform sorted because they’re rubbish.

It may be attractive to argue that the reason for your failure is out of your hands – to say that until the make-up of the States changes, it’s doomed to be ineffectual. But the truth that it’s the failure to agree reform after ten years is a symptom, not a cause, of the reasons for dissatisfaction with the States.

The reason, the actual reason, that the States have failed to get anything done on reform is not because of an inbuilt failure, it’s not because the subject is particularly difficult to understand and it’s not – let’s face it after about a dozen debates over the last decade – for lack of trying.

The problem is down to the debate being hijacked by a tribal scuffle with those on the right and left trying to get rid of each other’s seats. That’s all this really boils down to.

For all the high talk about principles and democracy, it’s about a turf war. That’s why the issue of the Constables sitting in the States is made out to be such a key one – they’re a generally conservative bunch, and so those on the left are keen to get rid of them, and those on the right are keen for them to stay.

That’s not to say that those on either side are completely cynical – it is entirely reasonable to hold the views that the Constables are either anachronistic or indispensable, that the Senators are either imbued with a greater democratic legitimacy or not, or that Deputies should be elected to parishes, sub-parish districts or super-constituencies.

It’s fair also to note that Senator Bailhache has made his position on the issue very clear – he wants to get rid of Senators and have a States Chamber made of around 30 Deputies and 12 Constables. In that sense he’s no different to any other States Member, because they’ve all expressed a view on this subject at one point or another.

Would Mr Wimberley be expressing the same points about the commission in the same way if it were someone he’d agree with in the frame for the top job? Perhaps. But perhaps not.

But it’s that entrenchment, that tribal attitude, that makes the former St Mary Deputy right to say that politicians should not be on the commission, even if it makes his motivation for saying it so dubious.

It should be transparently clear that it is wrong in principle to put politicians on the Electoral Commission that was set up for the expressed purpose of taking the debate about States reform out of politicians’ hands.

It should also be transparently clear that putting any politicians on the commission weakens it – because it pushes peoples’ backs up and gives their political opponents an easy excuse not to vote for the proposals that it comes up with, if they find those proposals personally or politically inconvenient.

Under the original proposals, the first time that States Members would get their mitts on the reform plans would be after they had been independently arrived at and put to a public referendum, the logic being that there would be enough momentum behind them to carry through the usual tribal bickering.

If States Members – Senator Bailhache or anyone else – would genuinely like to see change, they should stay clear of the commission. If they have real faith in their own ideas about reform, they should put their case to it, and then walk away. By attempting to hijack the process, they are in danger of ending up holding on to a sieve full of lumps, watching the best hope for reform drip down the plughole.