It was inevitable that the Chief Minister would point to the Programme for Government when he was asked at the February Tynwald to identify the successes and failures of his administration.

The question came from the Liberal Vannin MHK Kate Costain, who also enquired how achievements were measured.

The Chief Minister reminded members that the Programme for Government (PfG) had been developed by the Council of Ministers and Tynwald as a five-year plan for delivery, with regular reporting on progress.

The list of successes was too long to read out, he said. But it included securing sea services through the acquisition of the Steam Packet and a new landing stage at Liverpool, agreeing a climate change action plan, responding to concerns over gas prices, addressing public sector pensions shortfalls, and investigating zero hours contracts.

Of 180 actions identified in the programme, 45 per cent had already been completed. Of the outstanding matters only ten per cent had fallen behind schedule.

All of this information and more is on the government website, Tynwald was told.

It seems, then, that to know whether this government is succeeding or failing all you have to do is look online at the PfG and its progress reports.

That sounds like a model of transparency and accountability. But what you find on the website is so complicated it could confuse a rocket scientist.

In its various manifestations the PfG includes three strategic objectives, 20 outcomes, macro indicators, national indicators and a whole host of policy statements, commitments and actions. If that is not enough there are also quarterly reports, annual updates and individual departmental delivery plans each with their own key performance indicators.

And if you want to collect the full set don’t forget the documents on the framework and delivery of the PfG.

This is an adventure playground for technocrats but a bewildering maze for members of the public, who will take their perceptions of government’s priorities and performance from elsewhere. From the refurbishment of Douglas promenade, perhaps, or more positively from the annual Manx budget.

To be fair, running a democratic government of any size is a complex business. The PfG must be a useful tool internally, helping members to work together in the productive collaboration that was hailed by the Chief Minister as the greatest achievement of the present regime.

The structure of the programme reflects a sincere if unfashionable belief in the importance of evidence in making and measuring policy. And the section on actions takes a disciplined and businesslike approach to getting the job done, showing deadlines for completion and naming the members responsible for delivery.

But it is a mistake to rely on the PfG in its current form as a substitute for effective political communication with the general public. That may be one of the reasons why so few people agree that government has clear policies.

With its emphasis on unity, this administration tends to be more focused on internal dialogue than external explanation. Hence the closed briefings for members held so regularly in the Barool Suite of the legislative buildings, recently dubbed Tynwald’s ’fourth chamber.’

What the public needs, of course, is a fair and intelligible summary of government’s overall performance. From the Chief Minister’s Tynwald answer it appears that the preferred evidence for this purpose is now the number of PfG actions completed, on track or behind schedule, which are logged in the colours of a traffic light.

This is interesting, because early reporting on the programme offered higher level measures linked to its three strategic objectives, which are: an inclusive and caring society; an island of enterprise and opportunity; and financially responsible government.

These ’macro indicators’ included the movement in median earnings after tax, the percentage of people feeling government policies make a positive difference, reduction in the structural deficit, confidence in government, and growth in the economically active population.

A cynical observer might note that some of those indicators have headed south since they were last reported as part of the PfG process in November 2018.

Another Tynwald debate on the Programme for Government is due in April. This will include an update on strategic and national performance indicators, so we may learn what has happened to the macro measures.

With 18 months to go until the next general election, members should be thinking about what kind of end of term report will be produced by government to explain itself to the public.

This collective feedback is necessary as an exercise in political accountability, but also to inform the campaign debate and help voters assess the claims made by rival candidates.

To balance the picture, naturally, we will need the Tynwald scrutiny committees to publish independent critiques of government’s performances in key policy areas.

The challenge will be to provide information that is based on good evidence but is also relevant to everyday lives. Most importantly it has to be presented in language that people can actually understand, and please not in the form of colour-coded spreadsheets.