How to fix the States in one easy step

The more I think about it, the more it seems obvious that the way to fix the States, and give the people the government they have been crying out for, is staring us in the face. Richard Digard has been subtly pushing it again lately - his comment column in the Press alluded to it last week, and again in the Press blog today.

The easy step is this: Give the Chief Minister the power to appoint and sack the ministers.

The way the government is supposed to work is that the Policy Council sets the agenda for the States. No department can bring its policies before the house without the Policy Council's approval, and no department will waste its time drafting plans which won't get the council's backing. So, theoretically, the Billets should be stuffed with Big Vision Goodness.

Except it doesn't work, because the ministers in the Policy Council vote independently, and perhaps contrary to the Chief Minister's wishes. So in reality the Big Vision can go hang most of the time.

That is if you can find a Chief Minister who has any vision. Which you won't, because the Stuart Fallas and Peter Ferbraches of the world won't touch the post with a bargepole in its current form - it's a political death sentence. You're the only person anyone can really pin any blame on, but you get none of the real power needed to do anything about it!

Give the Chief Minister the power to sack the ministers, and the whole landscape changes. If the Chief Minister deems a matter important enough for a three-line whip, then dissenting ministers could simply be removed and replaced with ministers who will agree.

So, does that just give the power to some megalomaniac uber-Deputy, the worst of the worst?

On the contrary: It puts the power in the hands of the electorate. What brings this matter to the fore is the second post-Harwood general election being held next month. Looking at the candidate list, and especially reading the manifestos, the electorate once again basically has no choice but to elect the least incompetent people, who will just spend the next four years tugging the island in 45 different directions with predictable results.

If the Chief Minister is granted the power to push through his vision, the election is transformed, because candidates can declare their voting intentions for the post of Chief Minister at manifesto time. So then you've really got something to vote for - and it's 'island-wide', because whichever district you're in, you can vote for the candidates who pledge to vote for your preferred CM!

Of course all this change may not be in the interests of two groups of people. The first are those running the finance industry, because they like a nice stable jurisdiction and a parliament they can bamboozle; a government with a sense of direction threatens their cosy outlook. The second are incompetent sitting deputies who in all likelihood stand to lose their seats should the change cause a rush of able candidates to put their names forward next time.

Luckily one thing Harwood did get through was provision for referenda!