As a roadmap for the future, the Cannan government’s draft ’Island Plan’ shows a straight highway disappearing into the political equivalent of spaghetti junction.

The 20-page document has been published for consultation prior to finalisation in January. Although there are some good points, it looks distinctly half-baked.

The draft begins logically enough by stating core objectives and principles.

It acknowledges the importance of accountability and responsibility, but provides no framework to uphold these values at corporate level.

However, it does identify five major issues to be prioritised. In essence these are: housing; health and social care; economy; environment; education.

The language is largely abstract, but that is not surprising in the early days of a new government based on a broad coalition.

The crucial next stage, however, is to translate the abstractions into specific policy proposals, and this is where the plan loses its way.

Without clear and coherent policies this House of Keys will have nothing to deliver to the public. There will be no focus for it to prioritise resources and for the electorate to judge its collective performance.

So we look to the Island Plan to show us how policy will be developed under the five key headings. Who will be responsible for this work? When, and by what routes, will concrete proposals reach Tynwald?

How soon, for example, will we see real progress on housing and climate change?

The draft document does not answer these basic questions.

It highlights the concept of ’One Government’, suggesting a unified approach, but seems to leave the tricky business of building policy to individual departments and boards, which is a recipe for incoherence. There is mention of a ’national policy committee’ but no explanation of its role or composition.

The Island Plan will be reviewed annually, which is standard practice. On top of this there is to be a new ’Tynwald Conference’ each year to gain feedback from the public, and every department and board will publish an annual report for debate. These are worthy ideas but the overall impression is of a succession of talking shops.

Yet there is no commitment for the Chief Minister to take ownership of the whole show by presenting a regular report on behalf of the entire administration.

The failure to recognise government’s corporate accountability to the public is disturbing.

Like its predecessor, which created Manx Care and the Manx Development Corporation, this regime appears to believe the best response to policy challenges is to invent new structures and processes.

It is also outsourcing the search for solutions to agencies outside of the Council of Ministers.

The hazardous issues of climate change and housing are now being addressed by bodies led by backbenchers. This is either an exercise in inclusivity or a ploy to protect the centre, depending on your level of cynicism.

The status of these satellites remains unclear. Do they report via CoMin or direct to Tynwald? What happens if ministers disagree with their recommendations - which view prevails as ’government policy’?

The plan envisages re-setting the relationship between the Council of Ministers, Tynwald and the departments, but does not explain how this would work.

Under the system in place for the past 35 years it is ministers who carry the burden of responsibility and make decisions. This can put them at odds with backbenchers and public opinion, curtailing their otherwise promising political careers.

But any retreat from this position would represent a significant constitutional change, requiring proper scrutiny and debate. If we are to head back to the free-range chaos of the old board culture, that cannot be allowed to happen by stealth or by accident.

Government has lost its corporate memory, but a few of us can still remember the pre-ministerial Tynwald, when everyone was responsible so no-one was.

Meanwhile, as we ponder processes and structures, a box labelled ’Difficult Decisions’ lies as yet unopened by the recently arrived MHKs.

At the top of the pile is the question of how to fund the extra support for health and social care, and education, that almost everyone agrees is needed.

The Chief Minister himself has warned that public finances are stretched, so any increase in one area of spending will have to be matched by reductions elsewhere.

The latter are also known as ’cuts’, and they are usually controversial. The alternative is tax rises but this is also dangerous territory for politicians keen to keep their seats.

A third option, borrowing to finance routine spending, would be seen as fiscally irresponsible.

So the big challenges, the tough choices, are waiting for a meeting with our new and inexperienced House of Keys. These must be faced in order to put the island on the right course for the future.

The worry is that members will be too busy talking and moving the furniture to get round to the hard part of the job.