Put the trumpets down and answer the question

OK, so it wasn’t much of a battle – Senator Ian Gorst is too polite for that – but she’d have won if it was.

Another enthusiastic teen from Hautlieu had just asked a question about pay incentives for the civil service and Senator Gorst had answered – well, he had said something in response.

And then into action this young woman, aged probably just 16 or 17, sprung. Her light went on, she was invited to ask a question and up she got with a large intake of breath.

‘Sorry, Chief Minister, but you haven’t answered the question,’ she said. It was so simple, so polite and so very, very true – he hadn’t.

But, after the chuckles had died down in the public gallery, he did answer, and properly this time.

And had that young woman not pointed out that very obvious attempt to bypass the question by the Chief Minister we wouldn’t know that he supports cash incentives for civil servants who ‘go that extra mile’.

This happens a lot, not necessarily with the Chief Minister, but with all ministers. It is almost as if because someone once said something about politicians never being able to answer a question, they feel they have to live up to the hype.

But, newsflash, guys and gals, you don’t. And it isn’t big, it certainly isn’t clever and it helps no one.

Don’t believe me? Ask the Bailiff – he agrees with me.

Because it emerged this week that the Bailiff, Michael Birt, had become so frustrated with ministers blowing their own trumpets rather than answering the question that he wrote to them.

It was a strongly worded letter which basically reminded ministers and their officers (that bit is important because it is often the officers that help formulate the responses) to concentrate on the question asked.

Question Time, he said, is ‘not an opportunity to give a lengthy description of what a good job he or she is doing’. Well said, Mr Bailiff.

It was a rather unusual political intervention, but a warranted one. The Bailiff did not, as some have criticised the holder of that role of in the past, interfere in anyway. He simply reminded them of what is required, because someone had to.

Our politicians, ministers and not alike, can sometimes get a little too big for their boots and on occasion act like they can do what they want because of the position they are in.

But the letter, just like this week’s discussions about how better to deal with complaints against States Members and that challenge from the young woman in the Youth Assembly, are important reminders that our politicians are not untouchable.

The Youth Assembly example also highlights another important point: politeness gets you everywhere.

Too often our politicians verge on rudeness and abruptness and, unsurprisingly, they get the same kind of reaction back.

Sure, I sympathise with their frustrations and I am sure that if the young lady from the Youth Assembly had to sit in the Chamber every other week she too would find it difficult to rein in her feelings at times.

But, a measured, polite and direct approach will get you much further than an angry, frustrated one.

The hunt is currently on to find three lay people to serve on the new Electoral Commission.

Obvious conflicts of interest aside, I think it is a job I would be pretty good at. And that isn’t because I watch the States week in, week out, or because I think I know everything there is to know about the system. No, it is far more basic than that: I simply don’t have a clue what a new system should look like.

It isn’t that I don’t care or haven’t thought about it – I do and I have. It’s because I just don’t have any pre-determined opinions on it.

Constables or no Constables, 51 States Members or 34, or 46 or whatever – I really don’t know, and as the job description states, applicants must be able to approach the job without any preconceived views.

For a while I thought I may have been alone in this fact – everyone seems to have an opinion on States reform.

But, in recent weeks I have come to realise that isn’t the case. Even a few States Members during the debate on the Electoral Commission said the same.

So, there must be people out there who could certainly tick that box on the application form. But what about the other requirements?

An objective approach – can’t be too difficult. Available for regular meetings – no problem.

Where there may be a problem, however, to find someone who fits all these requirements but has no pre-determined views is the bit about ‘relevant knowledge, skills and experience’. Hmmmmm, I’d say someone with all those things probably does have opinions on the subject.

But that all depends on what they mean by ‘knowledge, skills and experience’. If they mean someone with an interest in local politics, someone who knows the system quite well and has had experience of interviewing people, asking questions and looking at evidence, then, yes, they do exist (and no I don’t mean just me again).

But if they are after someone with an in-depth knowledge of States reform issues, someone who has written papers, researched systems and solutions and served on similar bodies in the past, then it is unlikely that they won’t have arrived at some sort of conclusions in their head already.

And it is precisely because of that fact that at least one of the three lay people who will sit on the Electoral Commission is highly likely to be from outside Jersey.

The other reason is because which Islanders in their right mind, especially those who don’t already have their own ideas about reform, would want the job? It’s not paid, is going to be a hell of a lot of hard work and everyone will know where you are if you get it wrong.