I was looking at Carl Parslow’s arguments from his Jersey Evening Post opinion piece. There's a good deal of truth in what he says. My comments in italics.
Hollow instruments
Carl Parslow’s central thesis is that political manifestos in Jersey have become hollow instruments, stripped of accountability and substance, and that the electorate must demand more rigor if democracy is to function meaningfully. He contrasts the seriousness with which manifestos are treated in larger democracies - where breaking a pledge can provoke outrage and political fallout - with the casual disregard shown in Jersey, where broken promises are routine and largely unremarked upon.
Manifestos as Performance, Not Policy
Parslow argues that Jersey’s manifestos are not costed, coherent policy documents but rather personal wish‑lists or aspirational affirmations. Candidates, mostly independents without party machinery or policy teams, produce pamphlets filled with vague commitments—affordable housing, efficient government, environmental care -without any detail on costings, timelines, or trade‑offs. These documents resemble self‑help books more than serious governance plans, and once elections are over, they are quickly forgotten.
Ministers as “Free Agents”
Once elected, ministers are effectively free agents. They are not bound by their campaign promises, nor compelled to deliver on them. Instead, the Council of Ministers sets its own strategic priorities, often diverging from what voters thought they were endorsing. Parslow describes this as democratic theatre: candidates perform for the public during elections, but once the curtain falls, they rewrite the script backstage. The electorate is left clapping politely, with no mechanism to hold politicians accountable.
Absence of Accountability
Parslow highlights the fundamental absurdity of Jersey’s political ecosystem: there is no mechanism to discipline ministers who fail to deliver. Unlike larger democracies with party whips, opposition scrutiny, or press outrage, Jersey’s accountability culture is weak. Politicians are independent, so there is no collective platform to enforce promises. Oversight bodies lack teeth, and the electorate shrugs off broken pledges as inevitable. Parslow likens this to a polite book club where everyone has opinions but no one makes a fuss.
The Need for Seriousness
If manifestos are to mean anything, Parslow insists, candidates must be required to explain how they will deliver their promises. This means publishing estimated costs, timelines, and trade‑offs, and clarifying what existing activities would be stopped to fund new initiatives. Hustings should become sharper, with candidates challenged to defend their pledges and demonstrate policy competence, rather than reciting slogans about efficiency, sustainability, or transparency.
Manifesto Tracker: An online public scoreboard to monitor pledges in real time, showing which promises are kept, delayed, or abandoned. This would deter politicians from making unrealistic commitments.
Demanding Electorate: Voters must ask harder questions - about costs, funding sources, and implementation plans - rather than accepting vague affirmations. Just as one would not buy a car without a receipt or a house without a survey, political promises should come with a form of warranty.
Collaborative Platforms: Candidates should work together to produce coherent, costed policies, rather than isolated personal wish‑lists.
Parslow argues that Jersey’s manifestos are not costed, coherent policy documents but rather personal wish‑lists or aspirational affirmations. Candidates, mostly independents without party machinery or policy teams, produce pamphlets filled with vague commitments—affordable housing, efficient government, environmental care -without any detail on costings, timelines, or trade‑offs. These documents resemble self‑help books more than serious governance plans, and once elections are over, they are quickly forgotten.
Ministers as “Free Agents”
Once elected, ministers are effectively free agents. They are not bound by their campaign promises, nor compelled to deliver on them. Instead, the Council of Ministers sets its own strategic priorities, often diverging from what voters thought they were endorsing. Parslow describes this as democratic theatre: candidates perform for the public during elections, but once the curtain falls, they rewrite the script backstage. The electorate is left clapping politely, with no mechanism to hold politicians accountable.
Two of the most egregious examples of this were Angela Jeune and Ann Dupre, both of whom proceeded during their time in office, to vote with Terry Le Sueur's government almost totally against their manifesto promises. The breakdown can be seen here:
One of the most principled was Ian le Marquand who, despite being Home Affairs Minister, voted for exemptions to GST because it was what he had promised in his manifesto.
Absence of Accountability
Parslow highlights the fundamental absurdity of Jersey’s political ecosystem: there is no mechanism to discipline ministers who fail to deliver. Unlike larger democracies with party whips, opposition scrutiny, or press outrage, Jersey’s accountability culture is weak. Politicians are independent, so there is no collective platform to enforce promises. Oversight bodies lack teeth, and the electorate shrugs off broken pledges as inevitable. Parslow likens this to a polite book club where everyone has opinions but no one makes a fuss.
The Need for Seriousness
If manifestos are to mean anything, Parslow insists, candidates must be required to explain how they will deliver their promises. This means publishing estimated costs, timelines, and trade‑offs, and clarifying what existing activities would be stopped to fund new initiatives. Hustings should become sharper, with candidates challenged to defend their pledges and demonstrate policy competence, rather than reciting slogans about efficiency, sustainability, or transparency.
There is a brilliant idea in "Yes Minister" where the economist Dr Cartwright suggests I'm proposing that all council officials responsible for a new project list their criteria for failure before getting the go ahead. It's a basic scientific approach. You must establish a method of measuring the success or failure of an experiment. When it's completed, you know if it's succeeded or failed. A proposer states 'This scheme would fail if it lasts longer than this or costs more than that, if it employs more staff than these or fails to meet pre-set standards.'" I do wish some kind of budget responsibility would be in place.
Proposed Solutions: Parslow suggests several reforms to restore credibility:
Manifesto Tracker: An online public scoreboard to monitor pledges in real time, showing which promises are kept, delayed, or abandoned. This would deter politicians from making unrealistic commitments.
Demanding Electorate: Voters must ask harder questions - about costs, funding sources, and implementation plans - rather than accepting vague affirmations. Just as one would not buy a car without a receipt or a house without a survey, political promises should come with a form of warranty.
Collaborative Platforms: Candidates should work together to produce coherent, costed policies, rather than isolated personal wish‑lists.
Conclusion
Parslow concludes that unless voters demand more than “laminated optimism,” Jersey will remain a place where good intentions go to retire and manifestos are filed under fiction. Politicians will continue offering fairy-tale visions of efficient, vibrant government, while the electorate nods approvingly, forgetting that the same promises were made in previous elections. To break this cycle, the public must stop being passive audience members and start acting as editors—scrutinising, questioning, and insisting on accountability.
Parslow concludes that unless voters demand more than “laminated optimism,” Jersey will remain a place where good intentions go to retire and manifestos are filed under fiction. Politicians will continue offering fairy-tale visions of efficient, vibrant government, while the electorate nods approvingly, forgetting that the same promises were made in previous elections. To break this cycle, the public must stop being passive audience members and start acting as editors—scrutinising, questioning, and insisting on accountability.
As a number of those standing will have stood before, it would be a good idea to review each and every one of their manifesto promises to see how they have succeed or failed, or where the manifesto just has empty rhetoric.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment