Open and robust scrutiny, we are told, is vital for the health of the democratic process.

There was not much sign of it at the November Tynwald as members cheered on the Cannan regime’s radical new economic strategy.

Paving the way for higher government spending and a bigger population, the strategy was endorsed enthusiastically with only two votes against.

Not for the first time, one was left wondering how a proposal of such consequence for the island could be approved with so little critical challenge.

There are three possible explanations for the apparent lack of rigour, none of them reassuring:

1. The strategy is so obviously the only sensible option that there is no room for doubt and dissent. This seems unlikely.

2. Members have indeed interrogated and tested the plan, but behind closed doors at private presentations. In which case the public was excluded from the most important part of the process.

3. Tynwald has been affected by an outbreak of Emperor’s Clothes Syndrome or Groupthink, brought on by excessive briefing in a confined space with only one source of information. It can happen.

Members may say there was a public consultation on the strategy which was broadly in favour. The consultation survey, however, appeared to be biased towards a positive result, as one MLC bravely pointed out.

Respondents represented less than one per cent of the adult population. What they actually wanted most was government reform, which is not a priority for this administration.

And regardless of consultation outcomes, parliamentarians still have a duty to think for themselves and ask their own questions.

Sceptics might see the economic strategy as a developers’ charter or a green light for government to spend, borrow and tax. But there are a number of reasons, some good, to explain why Tynwald is so supportive.

The strategy addresses real and fundamental problems including the ageing population, the blight of brownfield sites and the threat of economic stagnation.

It offers a clear long-term direction of travel for the nation, and in this respect is the only show in town.

Through huge public and private sector investment it aims to make the island attractive to younger workers, thereby growing the productive population and creating a more vibrant society.

It looks forward to reduced income inequality and greater prosperity for all.

The proposition is ambitious, audacious and sends out a bullish message that the Isle of Man is open for business. It has been confidently promoted by the Chief Minister and presented throughout with a slick professionalism.

Ultimately, though, this looks like a leap of faith inspired by a ‘build it and they will come’ optimism. The strategy is dramatically different from its comparatively cautious predecessors.

Given the high stakes involved, a bigger effort might have been expected to show the risk is a calculated one and that the scheme rests on more than wishful thinking.

Consultants have produced a lot of data analysing the island’s current position and identifying its problems. But much less material has been provided to support the particular policy solutions that emerged from the Council of Ministers in response to that information.

Meanwhile the public does not know, because it cannot see, if its MHKs have worked through all the implications of this bold adventure.

How many have asked, for example:

* What alternatives were considered at political level to the option of government-led infrastructure expansion?

* Has this approach succeeded in similar communities elsewhere?

* Did government seek to learn from the experience of other countries in dealing with demographic challenges?

* A population of 100,000 by 2037 (an increase of 15,000) is still an objective of the strategy. What is the basis for believing this is ‘critical mass’ for the island, and that the economic model does not entail endless population growth beyond that point?

* Has government estimated the additional revenue and capital costs of developing services and infrastructure to accommodate 100,000 people?

* If not, how has it satisfied itself that the island can afford the higher public spending required by the strategy and remain a competitive low tax jurisdiction?

* If low tax were no longer the island’s unique selling point, what would replace it?

* What professional advice has been taken as to the appropriateness of investing parts of government reserves and of the national insurance fund in local development projects?

* What estimate has been made of the potential capacity of brownfield redevelopment and therefore the amount of additional greenfield development needed to cope with a population of 100,000?

The concern here is the transparency and quality of the process for agreeing major policy decisions. These can have a significant impact on all of our lives.