Select a region
Last week was not the States’ finest. First, Deputy Lyndon Trott, the President of Policy & Resources broke the bad news that income tax receipts this year look as if they are going to be £16m shy of previous forecasts. That’s quite an unpleasant blow.
Next up, Deputy Victoria Oliver, the President of the Development & Planning Authority (DPA) confirmed what had already seemed obvious to everyone, that it was not in fact going to be possible to complete the review of the Island Development Plan before the end of this political term.
The timetable had seemed impossibly tight from the outset.
If the DPA were determined to complete the review, they would need to have started the public-facing bit somewhat earlier in the term.
Then Deputy Al Brouard, the President of Health & Social Care, delivered an unplanned statement revealing that the replacement Electronic Patient Record IT project is currently projected to run £5m (30%) over budget its previous budget.
Pictured: Deputy Al Brouard.
Its first phase will also be delivered in June 2025, another year late. (The last States of Deliberation had approved the project in June 2020, following an urgent policy letter that was premised by the risk that the whole system could tip over if it was not replaced by March 2021.)
The DPA made political history by having a decision to refuse planning permission appealed for the first time by another States’ committee. This was in respect of the application by the States’ Trading & Supervisory Board (STSB) to temporarily stockpile inert waste at Longue Hougue.
The application was one the STSB was forced to make only because, having declined to progress an alternate site south of the existing one at Longue Hougue, the States had failed to progress any other sites before the current one is due to run out of space.
It was, at it had promised to be, an ugly and unproductive debate.
There were multiple challenges and interruptions, not least among the five members of the DPA, who had split three ways on the original decision to refuse permission.
After many working hours preparing the appeal, several weeks of delay and hours of debate, 30 deputies voted to allow the appeal, with no votes against – not even the three DPA members who had declined the application. Granting permission, welcome or not, was a no-brainer that should not have necessitated a States’ debate.
Pictured: The political members of the Development and Planning Authority.
A full day’s debate followed discussing the States’ Assembly & Constitution Committee’s (SACC) proposals for candidates’ spending limits in next year’s general election.
If you thought you had heard it all before, you had – in May.
SACC is the committee mandated to consider these matters and having been directed to look at the issue again, it did just that with the benefit of expert advice and had re-presented a reasoned and evidenced case for its recommendations. But the States is never afraid to believe that it can bark better than its own dog. So it readily agreed to slash these spending limits from the 2020 election limits of £6,000 per candidate and £9,000 per party to £3,000 per candidate and £3,000 per party.
For the avoidance of doubt, this spending is not public money, it is that of the candidates themselves. If an individual would rather spend their own money on promoting themselves for election than on anything else, why would the elected government of the day vote to stop them?
Deputy Brouard, only a little tongue-in-cheek, described a ‘cabal’ who had designed a set of rules that meant a candidate could only promote themselves for election through a government designed and printed booklet, with a specified format, font size, type and word limit.
The narrow 19-18 majority was secured by an unholy alliance between the principled (but naïve) views of some, combined with a cadre who welcome any opportunity to give the President of SACC, Deputy Carl Meerveld, a good kicking for perceived past disloyalty and others who just wanted to strangle the possible development of any political parties.
Pictured: Deputy Carl Meerveld.
The principled argument is that it is just ‘not fair’ to have a spending limit which some potential candidates will not have the resources to spend up to and therefore having a higher limit will put off some possible candidates.
The fatal flaw with this argument is there is no number, however low, to which that number does not apply.
By plucking another number from thin air, which it was, without reference to the evidence presented of costs that might reasonably be incurred, the States has agreed to a regime which will prevent candidates from campaigning in the way they see fit for themselves.
Whilst all international norms accept that there must be some reasonable limits on election spending, the principle of allowing ‘effective campaigning’ is a central tenet of the international norms and protocols.
If a candidate wants to spend within their limit on glitzy advertising or some stunt, surely the electorate are entitled to see and judge that for themselves?
Voters don’t need the government to shield them from candidates’ self-promotion. They are not stupid and will make their own judgement on the suitability of that candidate.
Having spending limits which to all in intents and purposes discourage or prevent candidates bandying together – whether you personally dislike the concept of political parties or not – is both anti-democratic and in breach of human rights of free political association.
While it is unlikely anyone will have the appetite or deep enough pockets to challenge the decision on these grounds, it is a racing certainty that election observers will be critical of these limits, albeit only after they have observed the election - which is, by definition, too late.
Pictured: Guernsey's next election is in June 2025.
The candidates’ £3,000 limit is the same in real terms as the £2,300 that was allowed when a candidate was still able to knock on every door in the last general election fought with seven districts in 2016.
Even having adjusted for the size of the electorates, it is lower than any comparable or neighbouring jurisdiction, including Jersey, the Isle of Man and the UK. A further restriction sees the election period during which the spending limits apply being doubled from 6 to 12 weeks.
The States know that this decision is one which very few members of the public will be following with much interest.
To many, it may seem like a dry, technical detail of electoral law, but it is disingenuous or naïve to suggest it will do anything other than benefit incumbents, especially those with an established profile, website and social media presence. Just because some incumbents may not get re-elected does not provide empirical evidence that there is no advantage. This decision will make it harder for the electorate to distinguish one candidate from another.
Voters will be left to select preferred candidates from a government promoted, Argos-style catalogue with possibly the key distinguishing features being how photogenic candidates are and whether or not they are wearing a hat.
Members of this States were elected in 2020 with the benefit of considerably higher spending limits, over a shorter election period and the opportunity to seek reimbursement from public funds of the first £500.
Those same members have removed the £500 grant, doubled the election period and more than halved the spending limits in real terms for anyone seeking their seats in 2025. If that feels unfair, you’d be right.
It also makes the case to take these matters out of self-serving hands and putting them in the hands of an independent electoral commission.
