Into a new era was the way this newspaper heralded the election of our new Chief Minister. The reason the JEP described it in such a way is because that is apparently what the new Chief Minister wants – a new era where everyone ‘works together to harness the passion and potential of every one of us’.

That will mean ‘applying traditional values to today’s modern world, (a belief) in prevention rather than cure, in planning for the future rather than burying our heads in the sand’.

‘I want a new era of politics underpinned by respect and co-operation,’ he told the States.

Fine words, indeed, and enough for a narrow victory, although I suspect not many members were swayed by the rhetoric. Probably most States members had already made up their minds and some voted because they expected to benefit from the result.

But that’s the way we decide such things in Jersey. We have a couple of speeches very short on specifics, a few questions in Trivial Pursuit style and, hey presto, we have a new Chief Minister.

Now it is not my intention to poor cold water over the enthusiasm for a new era expressed by our new leader. After all, I have been pretty critical of the former Council of Ministers in the past so I agree that some changes could be beneficial. But do we really need a whole ‘new era’? What about a bit of continuity as well?

It certainly doesn’t seem like our new Chief Minister is too worried about continuity or preserving anything that the previous Council of Ministers, of which he was an important part, actually achieved. With all the talk about ‘heads in the sand’, ‘a new era of politics’ and applying ‘traditional values’, he obviously doesn’t think much of the old guard.

This, of course, extends to ejecting the former Treasury Minister from his job in a move that has much wider implications than just shuffling seats. The electorate and the wider outside world would have the right to assume that the new Chief Minister doesn’t think much of the Treasury Minister’s policies.

So what’s to be put in its place when this new era of traditional values and working together has been ushered in? There are enough uncertainties already without adding to them by making changes in the portfolio that most needs continuity.

Perhaps you can’t expect the new Chief Minister, at a time like this, to worry about continuity. So it’s all change, even if it means replacing a colleague who has worked harder and achieved more than probably the rest of the senatorial bench put together.

Some long-standing readers may be surprised to hear me refer to the Treasury Minister in that way, as I have been pretty critical of him, or rather his policies, for some time. But that’s the point.

I might disagree with him, but I still understand his position and respect him. That’s why this talk of a new co-operative era where everyone is nice to each other and we all work together might sound beguiling, but it’s not practical politics.

Of course the Chief Minister was only setting out his vision in his election speech – and I’m all for government having a vision. But I would also like them to have their feet on the ground.

Personally, I don’t necessarily want States Members to constantly agree with each other. I want strong, even heated, debate about policies that have been carefully thought through and objections which have been well researched. That does not constitute a new era. It’s doing what the States do all of the time, just better. In other words, the only change required is in the way the States works, and that means yet more reform of the machinery of government which both candidates for Chief Minister support.

Indeed, the former Bailiff put it as his number one priority, because he realises that everything else will flow from a more efficient States focused on policies, rather than personalities. Unfortunately even the election process that he has just gone through for Chief Minister is more about personalities, with just a nod towards policies.

The States, which it is said is also hungry for change, was therefore faced with two candidates both offering it. One candidate wants reform but only after Clothier Part 2, while the other candidate wants the States to grasp the nettle itself. One of the candidates was not in the old States (at least not in a voting role), so you might have expected change to be more certain by electing him.

But perhaps the need for change was not really uppermost in the minds of most States Members after all and a majority of the old guard Deputies stuck with one of their own. The new intake was much more behind the fresh face who practically guaranteed change.

The end result is that we have a chief minister who promises not only a change in the way the States works, but in just about everything else as well. Nothing less than a change in attitudes is needed, he says.
He might be right, and he may even be able to do something about it, although that’s pretty doubtful.

What it doesn’t do is focus on the real problems facing the Island, which are almost entirely economic. As former president Bill Clinton would say: It’s the economy, stupid.

Perhaps some believe that social policies have been neglected in the concern about economics, but I don’t believe that or that there’s anything fundamentally wrong with the Island. For when was it that Jersey ceased to become a caring island? When did the Island become a divided society in need of not only political change, but social change as well? When did the constant bleating about failures in children’s policy, for example, become true? Sure we’ve got a few social problems, but Jersey has not changed to the extent that we no longer care about each other.

The new Chief Minister, therefore, doesn’t need to start with a clean slate, even if that were possible. He has to build on policies that have gone before and, if a change in direction is required, that should be done carefully over time.

That’s partly because we don’t have the advantages of a party political system where a change in government might seem dramatic, but is actually quite gradual. Most new ministers will have had experience in shadowing their departments, particularly Treasury, and there is an army of political advisers and Whitehall mandarins to ease the transition.

The new Council of Ministers, in contrast, will simply have time to get their feet under the table on the ninth floor of Cyril Le Marquand House before they’re off to creating this new era. But in the meantime we have a recession and the future of our economy to worry about. Let’s hope we’re not going to be deflected from that by rhetoric.

Peter Body is editor of Business Brief magazine