ASK yourself – what’s the point? I mean, really. Is it getting you anywhere? Achieving much? Making anyone’s life better?
We’ll find out the answer to this Biggest of all Big Questions at some point this week, which is good – if slightly unlikely – news. And we’ll find out in the States Chamber, which stretches the definition of the word ‘unlikely’ long past breaking point.
The good news about all of this existential angst is that it’s not life in general that’s provoking the questions, but the future and validity of the Scrutiny process – which although not being formally debated this week, finds itself centre stage.

The reason for that is that last week saw a couple of stories intersecting – senior Scrutiny chairman Ben Shenton quitting as head of the chairmen’s committee saying he no longer had any confidence in the system and slagging off one of his colleagues, his colleague having a pop in return, and a damning Scrutiny report on speed limits slating a proposed new policy as ‘dangerous, unnecessary and unfit for purpose’.

Senator Shenton’s resignation letter made the point that there are just 14 States Members now involved in the Scrutiny process – and that’s a remarkable number, considering that Scrutiny was meant to involve as many Members as possible, and that there is a legal requirement for non-ministerial Members to outnumber the ministers and assistant ministers.

There are two reasons for it: the one that Senator Shenton (fairly) alluded to, which is about politicians hijacking the Scrutiny process to further their own political ambitions, and one that he didn’t mention about no one taking Scrutiny seriously.

That second point came to a head a couple of months ago when the States agreed to reward the not entirely dizzying and universally popular success story that has been the Waterfront Enterprise Board by expanding it and handing it larger areas of the Island to slam ugly buildings on top of. That decision came over the strenuous objections of the Corporate Services Scrutiny panel, who said that there were serious questions hanging over the proposal that they had been unable to get to the bottom of.

Bearing in mind that the panel was properly elected, charged with reviewing policy and had conducted a formal review of the subject in question, the fact that their concerns were ignored was significant. They’d done the job that they were supposed to do and that they were bring paid to do, and it had amounted – effectively – to nothing, which probably isn’t an easy thing to have to explain to your voters when it comes round to election time in October.

At that point, you couldn’t really blame Scrutiny members for wondering if it was all worth it. Deputy Tracey Vallois certainly did, and after having spent no small amount of time on various proposals to improve the Scrutiny process, upped sticks and took on a job as an assistant minister at the Education department.

But the decision for States Members this week will be whether they are prepared to once again wave away the strongly expressed concerns of a Scrutiny panel and go with ministerial proposals – in this case to fiddle around with speed limits and green lanes.

If they do, then you could confidently expect the 14 members involved with the Scrutiny process to reduce further. And you can also expect a bit more serious existential questioning about the point of it all from those other States Members who aren’t on the executive, and who find themselves with little to do to occupy their time.

It’s not just that the Waterfront is a nightmare: it’s that everything it touches is a nightmare too, even the things it just brushes up against.

Whether it’s toxic ash, the £1,250 per day disappearing into the swimming pool, the notion of leasing a vast chunk of St Helier for 150 years in return for a set of buildings that won’t even last that long, the comedy salary of the Waterfront Enterprise Board managing director – there is nothing about the whole thing to which the normal laws of economics or reason seem to apply.

The rot, it seems, has spread to the afore-mentioned Jersey Development Company. Senator Sarah Ferguson gave evidence last week that the appointments process for directors of the company – which she and other Members was invited to get involved in – appeared to have been set up, sewn up and stitched up by ministers before she even got involved.

Is there anything about the Waterfront that is on the level?