Restoring trust in Jersey politics - Mark Boleat

Summary

Trust in the States Assembly and Jersey’s Government is low. Trust in the Assembly decreases the longer a person has been resident in Jersey. The lack of trust is not a new phenomenon; it has been consistently recorded since 2013.

The position in Jersey is little different from that in other jurisdictions.  Politicians throughout the world are not trusted, unlike for example nurses and scientists.

Politicians are largely distrusted because of the nature of the work they do. Unlike nurses, any significant decision by a politician will be viewed unfavourably by some people.  Also, politicians are held responsible for things over which they have no control.

There are some special factors in Jersey, reflected in the very low level of turnout in elections.  They include confusion as to where responsibility for decisions lies and a policy making process that does not work well.

An OECD survey suggests that trust in government can be improved by better engagement with citizens, strengtheningcapacity to address complex policy challenges, supporting a healthy information ecosystem, investing in evidence-basedcommunication and investing in improving perceptions of integrity in daily interactions and complex decision making.

Applying these principles to Jersey suggests the following actions would increase trust in the political system –

• Improve the consultation process in particular by having meaningful consultation with relevant organisations and not simply a call for views and a simplistic online poll.
• Requiring policy proposals to have impact assessments.
• Reducing the piecemeal approach to policy formulation. Many of the issues that Government has to deal with are complex and cut across several Government departments. Policy making has to be joined-up and always consider the big picture rather than take a narrow single issue approach.
• Publishing Government reports on the Government website in an easily accessible way.
• Publish comprehensive data, particularly in respect of social security, housing, health and education.

Trust in Jersey politicians is low

There is ample evidence that trust in Jersey’s politicians is low.  The most recent evidence is from the Government’s Jersey Opinions and Lifestyle (JOLS) Survey Report 2024, published in December 2024. A series of questions asked how much people trusted a range of civic or other community institutions. People were asked to rate their trust on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘not at all’ and 10 is ‘completely’. The States Assembly came bottom of the league table, with a score of 4.3/10, a reduction from 5.0/10 recorded in the 2022 survey. Trust in the Government was higher at 5.1/10, again a reduction from the 2022 figure of 5.3/10. By comparison, the Judicial system, Statistics Jersey, the States of Jersey Police and charities all scored over 6, charities topping the league table with 7.0/10.

Significantly, trust in the States Assembly decreased the longer a person has been resident in Jersey – respondents who had lived in Jersey for less than five years gave an average rating of 5.4 compared to an average rating of 4.1 for those who had lived in the Island for 20 or more years.

This lack of trust is not a new phenomenon. In the 2018 JOLS a different question was asked – whether respondents had confidence in a range of institutions in Jersey.  28% had confidence in Government and 47% did not.  By contrast the comparative figure for charities were 71% and 11%.  The same survey in 2013 had similar figures – 25% had confidence in Government and 49% did not.

But trust in politicians everywhere is low

The good news for Jersey politicians is that the position in Jersey not much  different from that in other jurisdictions. In the UK the Office for National Statistics publishes a regular Trust in Government report. The 2023 report showed that 57% had low or no confidence in Parliament and 24% a high or moderately high trust. The figures for Government were similar at 57% and 27%. Significantly, 34% had confidence in local government. The courts came out top, with 56% having confidence and 29% not having confidence.  Political parties were bottom of the league table – just  12% having confidence, followed by the media with 19%.  It should be noted that this survey did not cover charities.

The IPSOS Veracity Index asks “For each would you tell me if you generally trust them to tell the truth, or not?”  The 2024 survey showed that the most trusted professions for telling the truth were nurses, airplane pilots, librarians, doctors and engineers. The five least trusted were politicians, government ministers, advertising executives, journalists and estate agents. Nurses scored 88% and politicians 9%.

International comparative data show that the UK position is fairly typical. In the Ipsos Global Trustworthiness Index 2023, respondents were asked whether particular groups of people were trustworthy. Doctors came top with 58% considering them trustworthy, followed by scientists (57%) and teachers (53%). Politicians were bottom, scoring just 14%. Advertising executives and government ministers also scored badly. Figures for the UK were in line with the average, doctors scoring 63% and politicians 15%.

However, the major OECD study OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions – 2024 Results, shows the UK scored less well than the average - 26% with a high trust and 58% with a low trust compared with the average figures of 39% and 44%.

This study including some useful unpacking of the headline figures  –

• There is a clear divide between trust levels in the day-to-day interactions with public institutions, which remainrelatively robust on average and in many countries, and trust in the government’s ability to make the importantdecisions on complex policy issues with trade-offs across different groups in
• People who feel financially insecure, women and those with low levels of education, as well as those who report belonging to a group that is discriminated against, consistently report lower levels of trust in government.
• The sense of political agency is crucial in explaining the different levels of trust in national government in all countries. The trust gap between those who report they have a say in what the government does and those who say they do not is 47 percentage points.
• When government is a source of information, people are satisfied with the information available on administrative services (67%), while only 39% think that communication about policy reforms, an important driver of trust, is adequate.

Why are politicians distrusted?

Politicians are distrusted not because they are untrustworthy but rather because of the nature of the work that they do. There are some professions in which all the work that is done is seen to be beneficial. Medicine is the most obvious example, science and teaching also being examples.

The position with politicians is very different. But it is important to draw a distinction between those politicians who take decisions, that is some ministers, and those politicians who merely pontificate without ever having responsibility for decision. A politician who agrees with everyone, promotes spending money and carefully avoids taking a view on an issue on which there are strongly divided opinions may prove to be quite popular individually but ineffective as a politician. Similarly, politicians can seemingly take decisions which have no cost, for example making tax cuts or giving subsidies funded by borrowing or enacting laws which to many people take as being decisive action even if generally they are no such thing.

Some ministers come into the category of politicians who do not like taking decisions even though that is their one function. Most of the issues on which ministers have to take a decision will adversely impact or be viewed unfavourably by a group of people. The temptation, too often adopted, is to prevaricate, saying more information is needed or that there should be a further consultation even though all the information exists to enable a decision to be taken.  The really effective minister is one who takes a decision that needs to be taken promptly and has a strategy for implementation in a way that minimises adverse comment.

Some examples usefully illustrate the point. Almost every planning decision will be unpopular with some people – applicant or objectors, and as objectors outnumber applicants decisions are weighted against development. Education in Jersey is another good example. The structure of secondary education is exceptionally selective and is contrary to policies on inclusion, but any decision to improve the situation would be unpopular with some, particularly those who have benefited most from the selective system. The significant decline in the birth rate will require decisions on closing or merging primary schools, but these will be unpopular with some people.

Politicians are also held responsible for issues over which they have no control. Perhaps less so in Jersey, but in the UK, there is an expectation that the annual budget determines people's standard of living. It does not. The standard of living of people generally is determined by the economic performance of the country. All that budget decisions can do is to shift some income or wealth from one group of people who will not like it to another group who will like it. Locally, it is noted that some people blame the government when particular shops or restaurants close or when particular businesses “are allowed to set up in the Island”.

A general point needs to be made on the value of such surveys, illustrated  in the IPSOS Veracity Index.  Newsreaders were trusted by 42% to tell the truth, journalists by 21%.  As the veteran pollster Bob Worcester pointed out: “newsreaders read out what is written by journalists”. The reality is that people are more likely to believe something said by a newsreader than precisely the same words in a newspaper. This reflects a more general point – that people are more likely to believe something said to them in person than something that is written down. In the financial services industry it is well down that the complex  written disclosure requirements carry far less weight that a salesman saying “I have to give you this written information but let me give you the key points”.

Special factors in Jersey

There are some special factors in Jersey.  The distrust in the political system is reflected in the very low voter turnout, lower than in all OECD countries and little more than half that in Guernsey. Also, turnout is heavily skewed. In the 2022 election turnout was much higher in the 65+ age group (53%) than in the under 35 age group (17%), in rural areas (40%) than in urban areas (18%) and among owner-occupiers (41%) than among tenants (16%). In St Mary, 50% of those entitled to vote did so; in St Helier Central the figure was just 17%. The reason that people do not vote is not primarily because it is difficult to do so but rather because they don’t see the point of voting. The JOLS reported that the main reasons given for people not voting in the 2022 election were  “wouldn’t have made a difference” 30%, “don’t trust the political system” 28% and “not interested in the election” 24%.

The Jersey public have a low opinion of the competence of the Government. In an unpublished survey by the Government in January 2024 more than a third (36%) of respondents gave a score of 1 out 10 for how well Government was doing at addressing key issues. 70% gave a score of 3 out of 10 or lower. The mean score was 2.74.  Issues with the lowest scores were faith in Government/politicians 2.11, the hospital 2.14 and talent leaving the island 2.34. These are perceptions about facts, not facts. They are unfair to the Government. It is in the nature of politics that people instinctively believe that the Government is handling matters badly even if the opposite is actually the case.

There are three special factors which help to explain the level of distrust in politics in Jersey.

Who is responsible for decisions?

It is a feature of almost all democracies that there is a government and a parliament with very different responsibilities. The government is responsible for deciding how the country is run and for managing things day-to-day. It sets taxes, chooses how to spend public money and decides how best to deliver public services. The parliament is responsible for scrutinising both policy and legislation and holding the government to account. The government is able to take decisions because it is supported by the majority party or a coalition in the parliament.

Jersey has a different system. There is a Government of Jersey but the parliament, in the form of the States Assembly, has substantially more power than most parliaments. Jersey’s preference for independents means that the Government does not have the support of a majority of the Assembly. Decisions are regularly taken against the wishes of the government of the day. The Government is in a relatively weak position in relation to the Assembly and sometimes finds itself being held accountable for decisions which it opposed, or being expected to implement decisions which it knows will not achieve their intended purpose.

The position is further complicated by the use of the term “States of Jersey”,  an historic term, the States originally comprising the jurats, the rectors and the constables. The term “States of Jersey” as a legal entity has been abolished but is still widely used. For example there is “States of Jersey Police”, which implies that its function is to police the States Assembly. Guernsey more sensibly has the ”Guernsey Police”. Clearly, the term is now inappropriate and its continual use leads to confusion as to who is taking decisions and who is accountable for them.

But the substantive point is that on some issues it is the Assembly that is responsible, in some cases the Government and in some cases both. For example, the issue of the ferry tender is clearly the responsibility of the Government, the hospital debacle has shared responsibility between Government and Assembly and the decision to include implementing the Carbon Neutral Roadmap in the common strategic policy is the responsibility of the Assembly.

This usefully leads on to the key point of the inadequacy of the policy-making process.

Evidence-light policy-making

Major political decisions, for example on the health service, education, or taxation, need to be taken with the benefit of careful consideration and analysis of the available evidence and consultation with relevant stakeholders. It is particularly important to understand the impact of decisions, which can be very different from the intended impact.

To take an extreme example, a proposed policy to double the tax on alcohol or tobacco may have the stated intention of reducing consumption and raising tax revenue. But the effect may be the opposite, as the illegal informal market becomes more attractive, sales in the formal market and therefore tax revenue decline and consumption increases as more people use the tax-free informal market. In order to help ensure that policy decisions will achieve their desired impact the normal procedure is for proposals to be accompanied by an impact study, based on a standard template and prepared with the appropriate professional advice.

But this does not happen in Jersey.  Propositions to the Assembly are merely required to state “the financial or manpower resources of the States or any administration of the States” as if the impact on the public does not matter.

This applies not only to propositions but also to amendments, which are capable of having as much impact as original propositions.  A good example is the inclusion in the electoral law of “none of the above”. This major constitutional change was proposed in an amendment on 12 November 2020 and after a quick discussion in the Assembly and a vote of 25 for and 23 against became law three weeks later on 2 December, notwithstanding the comment of the Privileges and Procedures Committee that it “is an absurd exercise in window dressing likely to fool or satisfy no one”.

In most political systems the government’s proposals are generally agreed by the parliament but have to take into account what the parliament considers to be acceptable and have to be open to scrutiny. By contrast, in Jersey, government proposals are seen as something on which any member or group of members can add their own proposals and with a reasonable chance that they will succeed.

Poor communication

The Government website and the States Assembly website are both poor in every respect very poor in respect of policy issues. The previous Governor gently commented on communications in his valedictory speech to the States Assembly.

People who send you here to represent them, to make those big decisions for them, do need to understand the reasons why you have made those decisions.  Even when they do not necessarily always agree with them.  As leaders of the community, you need to explain your decisions and to take the people with you otherwise they feel disconnected and disrespected.  Communications of any form should never be an afterthought.  It should be considered in parallel with any change of policy or new legislation.

Anyone wishing to understand the development of government policy needs to be an expert at navigating their way through not only the government website but also the States Assembly website and being accustomed to referring to issues by proposition numbers rather than names. This is unfortunate as there is in fact a good deal of excellent analysis underlying some policy decisions, but it is so carefully hidden that it does not contribute to an informed public debate. A good example is the recent Common Population Policy Annual Report 2024, slipped out quietly on 19 December 2024. It does not exist on the Government website but only as a report on the Assembly website.

What can be done to improve trust

A useful starting point to improving trust in the political system is the OECD survey on drivers of trust.  This  suggested four areas where action is needed -

• Engage better with citizens to enhance trust in both local and national
• Strengthen capacity to address complex policy challenges especially at national government
• Support a healthy information ecosystem and invest in evidence-based
• Invest in improving perceptions of integrity in daily interactions and complex decision

Two direct quotes from the report also seem relevant to Jersey  -

Prioritising trust as a policy objective implies the government recognises trust as an indicator of government performance, and an input with significant impact on policy outcomes. It often involves a commitment to regular data collection, which allows governments to track trust evolution and identify areas requiring further investment.

A high positive correlation exists between those who trust the national government and those who perceive government decision-making as evidence informed. Governments would benefit from more actively communicating about the evidence, research, and statistics that inform their decisions to improve public perception of the decision-making process.

These points lead to specific and related actions that would enhance trust in both the States Assembly and the Government of Jersey.

Improve the consultation process

In May 2024 the Policy Centre published a research report Improving the consultation process, which analysed problems with the present arrangements for consultation and suggested improvements.  The report argued that the major deficiency is a failure to have meaningful consultation with relevant organisations. A call for views and an online poll publicised on Facebook do not constitute meaningful consultation. The report noted that closed-question online surveys are the preferred means of responding to consultations. This is not sufficient and often they do not cover key issues and run the risk of questions being biased. Also in consultations, respondents are asked to give little or no information about themselves so there is no way of assessing how representative respondents are. Finally, responses to consultation exercises are often non-existent or poor, in particular by failing to indicate how policy has been influenced.

The deficiencies are fairly easy to remedy. They require some modest additional resources but the investment would be well worthwhile in enhancing trust in the policy-making process and therefore in trust in politicians.

Requiring policy proposals to have Impact statements

In most jurisdictions it is a requirement that any policy proposal should be accompanied by an analysis of the intended impacts, often called a cost benefit study. These are often far from easy to undertake because there can be many uncertainties but this is no excuse for at least not setting out possible costs and benefits and including where possible relevant data and analysis from outside the Island. The work of the Policy Centre can itself be cited in specific cases. For example, the recent consultation on the national anthem for Jersey was little more than 10 lines long but could easily have referred people to the Policy Centre’s comprehensive Policy Brief on the subject.

Reducing piecemeal approach to policy making

One of the OECD’s suggested actions was “strengthen capacity to address complex policy challenges especially atnational government level”. Many of the issues that Government has to deal with are complex and cut across several Government departments. Policy making has to be joined-up and always look at the big picture rather than take a narrow single issue approach.

A good example is tackling the issue of poverty in Jersey. There is adequate data to understand the nature of the issue and ample well-documented experience from around the world on how best to tackle poverty. However, in Jersey the approach is often to consider very narrow issues such as raising the minimum wage, increasing tax thresholds, freezing rents, increasing social security benefits or removing GST on food, with little consideration as to whether such measures would be effective and their implications for other Government policies. For example, raising tax thresholds benefits everyone except the poor as the poor do not pay income tax, removing GST on food benefits the rich rather than the poor because they buy more food and freezing rents is irrelevant to low income tenants as their rent is met by social security and also affects the supply of housing.

These issues were comprehensively considered in the Policy Centre report Low income in Jersey.  The final conclusion in this report could apply equally to other areas of Government activity –

The Island would benefit from considering the issue of low income as a whole rather than in bits with a view to developing a suite of coherent policies in respect of taxation, income support, minimum wage and subsidies on specific goods and services that most effectively achieves objectives in respect of helping those in relatively low income.

Publishing Government reports on the Government website in an easily accessible way

Government reports are not easy to find. Some are published only on the States Assembly website (for example the 2024 Population Policy Report), many cannot be found easily using the search engine and the button on the Government’s home page heading (wrongly) “States Reports” does not give access to many reports.

This point was recognised in the 2022 Engagement and Information Improvement Report.  Recommendation A3 was that “All key areas of Government policy should have a dedicated page on gov.je containing relevant information, policy documents and public announcements.” The May 2023 update stated that “Policy webpage content and structure has been drafted and checked with policy officers. Upload should take place by end of June 2023.”

However, this has since being abandoned.  A Freedom of Information response stated -

there has been a change of Council of Ministers, with a new set of Common Strategic Policies, revised savings to curb the growth of the public service and a focus on right-sizing the Cabinet Office’s policy and communications functions. Therefore, this work is no longer a priority and, although the material still remains online, it will not be updated regularly.

This makes it very difficult  for people who want to know about Government policy, in particular areas to find the necessary documents.  To a large extent the Policy Centre has compensated for this through its series of 23 Policy Briefs, which are kept continually up to date

Publish comprehensive statistics, particular in respect of social security, housing, health and education

The 2025 Government Budget provides for net revenue expenditure of £1,196 million. The departments with the largest budgets are Health and Community Services £322 million (27%),  Education and Lifelong Learning £176 million (15%) and Employment, Social Security and Housing £109 million (9%). However, the Government publishes very limited statistics as a matter of course on these areas of activity. Rather, up-to-date information can be obtained only through Freedom of Information requests or monitoring answers to questions in the Assembly or responses to Scrutiny Panel requests for information. For example, the most comprehensive data on education is in a report of a Scrutiny Panel published in December 2024. The report notes the absence of data on the CYPES website. A letter to the Panel dated 17 July 2023  contains more data than is on the Government website.

More generally, the statistics and performance page of the Government website has the following –

• On social security statistics, just some high level figures most of which stop at 2019.
• On education there are again only high level figures, only recently updated to include the 2022/23 year.
• On health, there are no figures at all on how money is spent.
• On transport there is a chart showing bus passenger numbers up to 2024, figures for the number of vehicles up to 2021 and figures on driving tests up to 2017. For sea and air transport the figures, with one exception, stop at 2021.  Fuel imports figures stop at 2019.
• Impôts and customs receipts stop at 2019.
• Ambulance, police and fire and rescue statistics stop at 2021.

This was not always the case.  On social security, for example, there is a comprehensive report with detailed statistics for 2017.  The detailed statistics surely exist because they are essential in order for policymakers and officials to do their job properly. Similarly, there are detailed statistics on impôt and customs receipts, which are published in the annual government plan.

It seems that a decision has been taken to stop publishing detailed statistics. There is a risk, materialised in the case of Jersey, that one of the drawbacks of having a Freedom of Information scheme is that it simply replaces the provision of information as a matter of course.  As a result statistics are less comprehensive and accessible. If up-to-date statistics on the areas for which government is responsible are wanted one has to wade through FoI responses rather than look at the statistics page of the Government website.

References

Barriers to Business Report, Jersey Business, 2023.

Engagement and Information Improvement Report, Cabinet Office, 2022.

OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions – 2024 Results, OECD, 2024.

Improving the consultation process, Policy Centre Jersey 2024.

Ipsos Global Trustworthiness Index 2023, Ipsos 2023.

Ipsos Veracity Index 2024, IPSOS, 2024.

Jersey Opinions and Lifestyle Survey Report 2024, Statistics Jersey, 2024.

Policy Briefs. Policy Centre Jersey.

Trust in Government, UK: 2023, Office for National Statistics, 2024.

Biographical note

Sir Mark Boleat is Senior Adviser to the Policy Centre Jersey. He has undertaken consultancy projects for the Government of Jersey on housing, consumer protection, immigration, financial resilience and Island identity and for clients in the UK and internationally on housing finance and the development of public policy. He has written several books and numerous papers on public policy in Jersey, the UK and globally. He has held senior positions in Jersey (Chair of Andium Homes, the Jersey Development Company and the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority) and the UK (Chair of Link Scheme Ltd and the International Business and Diplomatic Exchange, Political Leader of the City of London and Chief Executive of the Building societies Association, the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Association of British Insurers).

‍