I HAVE always been very wary when Jersey politicians decide to hold a “public consultation” – especially when it involves a highly complex subject and the public are invited to go and listen to those promoting their product or cause, so that they will be “better informed” and can make “educated decisions”.

I spent several years as a senior executive with an international marketing company that designed extensive, high-grade marketing programmes for large international companies. We used focus groups run by highly qualified people as well as market-testing public opinion systems with carefully designed questionnaires on controversial subjects such as assisted dying or the use of seatbelts in cars.

Because of this, I pride myself on knowing a professional public consultation and research programme when I see it. I learned that lesson early in my career and was able to judge these proposals accurately when I ultimately had to make decisions choosing the companies to run them at considerable cost.

The so-called “consultation” events I have seen in Jersey over the years have been extremely low grade, designed to look like “consultations” but were, in fact, nothing more than sales presentations by politicians to convince the public that what they were putting forward would be of benefit to Islanders. They were designed to help them win over the public.

What the public never get is the full balanced picture. What they receive is a sanitised version of the truth on the basis of “never let the truth interfere with the good news”.

I have never understood why people bother to get involved with these charades. When I vote for a politician, or a group of them, I give him/her/them permission to act on my behalf and I expect him/her/them to do the necessary research, listen to the arguments, read all the supporting documents, use their common sense and make a decision on my behalf and either support or reject a proposition that is before the States for the benefit of everyone.

I am, in effect, allowing him/her/them to vote for that proposal on my behalf and by my vote I put my trust in him/her/ them to do that job diligently, acting in the interest of the Island. That is surely a politician’s role and it is always how I saw it as a politician.

Constantly going out to the public under the guise of “consultation” to get the public’s view on a particular subject is government by the uninformed.

It’s even worse when the consultation includes a questionnaire that people are asked to fill in, especially the way the questions are framed and where the results will be used in the States debate to support their cause.

Generally, the public can’t possibly be as well-informed about a complicated subject as a politician who has done his/ her/their homework and study, which is their full-time job. Obviously, on a matter where a moral issue is involved, such as abortion or assisted dying, a politician might feel the need to go out and talk to his constituents to test their view but those issues don’t come up that often.

But the views of the public are now being sought in Jersey as to whether or not it would be a good idea to allow a wind farm to be built off the coast, costing over a billion pounds and owned by an outside company, to provide us with our electricity.

Our ministers publicly admit that the venture is so risky that Jersey won’t put in one penny towards the cost yet both the Environment Minister and the Economic Development Minister think this could be a solid plank on which to build Jersey’s economic future.

They appear to believe – and publicly state – that they expect that this will be a road to prosperity because we will be able to tax the company on their profits. What they don’t point out is that wind turning giant blades that then turn huge turbines to produce electricity which then has to be transported by undersea cable to the receiving point for distribution by cable to the consumer is a massively expensive way to produce power compared to hydro, nuclear or tidal. Those operating around the world have to rely on huge government subsidies to enable them to offer it to the consumer at a reasonable price. Without those subsidies – which eventually have to be paid by the consumer – some of these wind farms would not be breaking even, let alone making profits.

When you study the sales blurb that the States of Jersey are putting out in their campaign to “consult” (their word)/ “persuade” (my word) people about wind farms, as part of their Islandwide road show, the public are being told “we want to hear from you and understand what matters to you to make sure your perspectives inform the States debate” (next year).

Typical of the distortion of the facts is the constant reference to the claim that this is a good time for Jersey to be involved in this as the wind-farm industry is booming.

This is grossly misleading.

The reality around the world is that the wind-farm industry is caught in a perfect storm of massive borrowings at high interest rates, rampant inflation of up to 40% on the cost of the huge amounts of concrete, steel, high-performance plastic resins, fibreglass, carbon-fibre reinforcement materials, high-end magnets derived from rare earth materials, designer lubricants and labour, all essential in manufacturing the giant windmills.

Companies such as the giant stateowned Swedish wind-power company Vattenfall, who were constructing the UK’s largest wind farm off the Norfolk coast, have now mothballed the project, saying that it is uneconomic for them to continue.

When the UK government offered a number of sites to the wind-farm industry last month for quotations to establish more wind farms around Britain not one company was interested.

Recently, in an article on the future of renewable energy, the Epoch Times, a US website dealing with climate matters, reported that “the wind industry might be teetering on the verge of collapse”. The article went on to say: “Multiple offshore wind projects that are not even built yet have asked their State Public Service Commission to renegotiate their strike prices – the amount they will be paid per megawatt hour for electricity produced (roughly enough electricity to power 750 homes for one hour). Companies like Orsted and Ever Source have asked for an increase of 27% for their Sunrise Wind project, which would raise their strike price from $110 to $140 per Mwh. And the joint venture of Equinor and BP have asked for huge increases on all three of their current projects...”

The report continued: “Perhaps no sector of the renewable energy industry is more guilty of leaning on platitudes than the wind industry. Through dishonest manipulation of cost estimates and a relentless campaign of propaganda, proponents of the wind industry have convinced countless politicians of support for an industry that disrupts the smooth operation of electricity grids and is utterly dependent on the intermittency of the weather. Anyone with a passing knowledge of energy fundamentals knows this simply cannot be sustainable.

“In the last few weeks, the pace and severity of news articles detailing the wind industry’s persistent struggles have surprised even us. At a time when the Biden administration is pushing for massive new installations of both onshore and offshore wind turbines, the industry is recoiling from one disaster after another calling into significant doubt the wisdom of throwing good money after bad.”

Of course, we in Jersey won’t be given any of this information during the “consultation” by the government to help us in our deliberations.

What is needed is not sanitised information but a full hearing by the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel into this venture. They would be able to hire highly qualified experts in wind farms and electronics to advise the Island whether this plan is financially, socially and environmentally sound or simply foolhardy. I would happily give them a list of a least half a dozen names who would fit the bill perfectly.

It’s far too important for the future of the Island to let this matter be decided on information provided by those responsible for the Les Sablons experience – a department accurately described as “dysfunctional”.

What do you think?

•What do you think about the proposal to build a wind farm off the Island’s coast?

•How useful are public consultations and is this “government by the uninformed”?

Send your thoughts to editorial@ jerseyeveningpost.com or #jointhedebate on social media