The Slow Death of Opposition

The States Assembly is known to be a horseshoe shape. As opposed to many parliaments which are set up across a divide. When you are first elected and shown your new workplace, the collaborative idea of this structure is made clear.

So the notion of opposition, in political terms, is difficult. Particularly when we have not, until now, had an effective party present in the Assembly. Before January of this year, Reform was the organised opposition in the assembly. But what did that actually mean? 

For us, it was a constructive role. Separate from Scrutiny, based on manifesto commitments and clearly expressed political principles. Opposition was based on agreed policy positions that were clearly published in our manifesto.  

And this is the key. Taking the important role of an opposition in parliament is much more effective, transparent and clear for a political party.  And Scrutiny is not the place for opposition of this type. Scrutiny is the place for collaborative work based on evidence and shared concerns. You leave your party allegiances behind. 

So where are we now? 

There is a clear opposition group developing. Indeed, there appears to be a group working together, separate from scrutiny. I understand they hold regular meetings.  And organise questions and approaches to propositions. 

So what is the problem? The answer is transparency. When will this group declare its membership to the voting public who elected these members as independents? 

What is the link between them, is it shared manifestos? Is it shared political principles? Is it a shared experience of being previously in government?

And who leads the group? Who is the driving force behind it? Are there people behind the scenes funding the group? Undertaking research?

I think it is only fair to make clear to voters with whom you are working collectively and why.  

Is this an extension of the 'Better Way' group? Is it the emergence of a new party? A Rose Party, a Hope Party, a Brunch club? 

Before my role in government I would bring propositions that I had discussed with my party colleagues and that had specific aims based on my underlying principles. Both the people I worked with and my principles were clear and upfront at election time.  

Any opposition with secrecy at its heart will fail at the first hurdle of credibility.  

If a group of politicians elected as independents or in a pseudo party such as the Better Way now work as an organised grouping. They must declare their members.  

Any work undertaken in Scrutiny receives its own extra scrutiny when members are in a declared party.  A party should be registered at the Royal Court with all of the public transparency that entails.  This is not possible with hidden alliances. It does nothing for public confidence in our politics.  

Rightly or wrongly Reform Jersey has had to deal with assumptions about us in the Assembly because of our openly declared membership. We have worked hard to make those assumptions positive. 

My concern is partly that we have a period of political discourse that is falling victim to the personal fall out of the vote of no confidence. We must move on. I welcome more parties being formed. Clearly defined principles and leadership enables better governance. But the personal nature of recent debates and questioning is not good for the Assembly. Not good for debate. And not good for Jersey.  

Opposition dies without the life support of transparency. It becomes nihilism. Destructive with one outcome. That is to undermine with no clear reason or positive outcome. 

I do not believe anyone in the Assembly wants this.  So let's move on from the last two years. Let's all perform our roles to the best of our ability and do so with professionalism and care for our unique democracy.