By Gavin St Pier
In my last column two weeks ago, I made a rather tongue-in-cheek reference to the fact that Kwasi Kwarteng was still the Chancellor at the time of my deadline for that column. I didn’t seriously expect that he would be sacked before my next column went to print. Given the pace and increasing absurdity of political developments in Westminster, I should perhaps note, if only for caution’s sake, that Liz Truss is still the Prime Minister – or at least was at the time of this column’s deadline.
Notwithstanding that the Conservative Party has been in government for more years than the Labour Party, it is still a sobering fact that the Conservative Party have had the same number (four) Chancellors of the Exchequer since July this year, as the Labour Party have had in the 55 years since 1967. That statistic alone could provide no better indication of the decline of the stability of the UK’s political system, putting it in the basket case of nations that the rest of the world has a good chuckle at.
Jeremy Hunt – he’s the latest and current appointee to the role of Chancellor for those struggling to keep up – has taken Kwasi Kwarteng’s entire mini-Budget (or ‘fiscal event’, if you are still trying to avoid scrutiny from the Office for Budget Responsibility) and dumped it in the Treasury’s paper shredder. The speed and scale of this U-turn is unprecedented, as is the damage wrought by the financial markets’ view of the original package.
Our own governments have a long and inglorious track record of changes in policy direction, some of which amount to a full blown 180 degree U-turn. In Jersey, the site of the hospital is one past and current example of expensive changes of mind. Guernsey equivalents would include the waste disposal strategy and secondary education policy. More recently, Guernsey’s sacking of the chief executive (at a cost to taxpayers rumoured to be around a not insignificant half a million pounds) for failing to implement a public service reform programme fast enough, before then tearing up the entire plan anyway, would be a good example of an unforced (and costly) change for which there ought to be, but won’t be, an apology.
Before we get too sanctimonious, from our moral high ground, it’s worth remembering that in our personal and working lives we all change our minds from time-to-time, and this can often be a good thing. In the right circumstances, U-turning should be welcomed. So, when should governments U-turn and how should they do it?
In my political career, so far, I’ve been involved in two significant political handbrake turns. The first was within a few months of being elected. I was the Treasury Minister and we were preparing our first Budget. In it, we announced the phasing out of mortgage interest relief. Like Kwasi Kwarteng and Liz Truss, we were filled with ideological certainty that it was the right thing to do. While unlike them, we did not sack our key adviser, I was inexperienced and certainly hubristic and so ignored officials’ advice to proceed with more caution. All hell broke loose. In the face of a lot of very angry people, we had – in the language of modern political commentary – to ‘walk the policy back’ by accepting an amendment, rather than face certain humiliating defeat. There were some salutary lessons. Firstly, in politics, logic and common sense do not trump emotional response; and secondly – and in another parallel with the current UK crisis – springing surprises on the punters is best avoided by investing significant time in preparing the ground and case for change. Having learned those lessons, when the policy was re-presented three years later, while not popular, it was pretty readily accepted. (As an aside, in a case of history repeating itself, my successor in Guernsey’s Treasury role – like me, a novice to the role – has made exactly the same mistakes in overestimating sound logic in policy making and failing to adequately prepare the case for GST. Consequently, he has been forced into a series of now fatal delays, that will likely see the policy crash and burn when presented to the Assembly in January 2023.)
My second case study came early in the pandemic. When we locked the Island down first time around, for reasons that are now forgotten but seemed sound at the time, we left takeaways open. It made no sense to the public, who were confused and frightened by the decision, undermining confidence in the whole strategy. Within hours we put our hands up and changed direction. The ‘mea culpa’ apology was swift, unforced and heartfelt. The public could see that and readily forgave us our error. This example of how to change tack, stands in contrast to the position Liz Truss is currently in. Despite the rapidly mounting evidence from the markets’ reaction, the reversals were forced and far from swift. On the contrary, the government were defending their policy positions right up until the moment they changed them. The apology, when it was finally delivered with a rictus grin, lacked authenticity, and felt more like a hostage video.
Few of us find it comfortable to admit, frankly, that we got it wrong, that we made a mistake, especially if there were painful or expensive consequences to the mistake. There is no reason why politicians would be any more comfortable doing so. Often, financial loss of public money to the voters whose support is so essential, is the consequence of a mistake that would rather not be admitted. It is especially tricky for those who’ve been elected on one policy platform and find they are now delivering another. Many political personas present themselves, whether genuinely felt or not, as having absolute certainty and infallibility. For them, this does make the process of rowing (or walking) back somewhat harder. But we should be as encouraging and forgiving of politicians who change direction as we are of those in other aspects of our life provided, of course, that they rapidly recognise their errors and properly apologise for them – which is why it is possible the Prime Minister may have gone before my next print deadline.
-
Gavin St Pier is a Guernsey politician. He previously served as the President of the island’s Policy and Resources Committee.
