Picture the scene...

THERE is something very dysfunctional about our system of government, which frequent progressive enhancements only seem to have made worse.

Back in 2012 the Sarnian Spring arrived on a wave of optimism the like of which we haven't seen since. So much was expected of so few by so many that the depressing legacy the Springers passed onto the Assembly That Has No Name came as a great disappointment.

The Springers' can-do attitude and decision-making ability was going to revolutionise Guernsey and propel us on to even greater greatness in the future. Long-lingering topics such as waste would be put to bed in an instant and the Springers could then move on to more pressing issues, mostly focussing on how to lift more money out of our pockets to fund pet projects.

In some ways the Springers' failure to not be bogged down in the mire like their predecessors has probably been beneficial, to the extent that we still have a few pounds they haven't sniffed out yet. But mostly it's been very depressing that the alcohol-fuelled party in the brewery still hasn't been organised.

What is the fundamental problem? The States obviously considered titles to be a major constraint to efficient government. Ministerial titles and a Policy Council had made them unable to discharge their duties to the best of their abilities. The Assembly of 2016 is in no way held back by this disadvantage now we have presidents and newly named committees. Changing the confusing chief officer title to chief secretary has been an added bonus.

Are we already seeing the new, slimmed down and re-branded States working better yet? The education debate would suggest we aren't. How unexpected, when so much effort was put into the Building a Better States for Tomorrow project.

I had to get to the bottom of this conundrum, so with a pile of wet towels ready to be applied to the forehead I went into deep investigative mode.

I'm a simple man with little formal education and I find imagination helps me better than evidence when trying to solve a seemingly unsolvable problem.

I therefore decided to stress test the new system of government and particularly what happened in ESC (the new Education, Sport & Culture committee acronym, in which I often struggle to remember what the S and C stand for) that led us to where we are today.

I imagined that Theresa May had been elected president of ESC and was joined by Jeremy Corbyn, Owen Smith, Ed Balls and Justine Greening. You probably know who they all are and what they stand for except Justine Greening, who is the Education Minister in the UK. Yes Minister's Sir Humphrey Appleby and Sir Arnold Robinson agreed to come out of retirement to be chief secretary of ESC and chief executive officer of the States of Guernsey respectively.

President May firmly believed that the March decision by the previous Assembly should be overthrown, given the clear message delivered by the electorate at the recent general election. She was further convinced her reading of the situation was correct following her clear win in the presidential election.

Some members of her committee may still support the old decision, but should realise they have been elected to draw up proposals to reverse it. That's what consensus government is all about.

At first somewhat disheartened by the course of events, but realising what had to be done, Deputy Corbyn et al supported Deputy May and Sir Humphrey was asked to prepare a new proposal to be presented to the Assembly.

Sir Humphrey was aghast. This was not what he was expecting and within the constraints of his brief he used every device possible to convert President May to the previous plan. Sparks flew.

Seeing the dissent, Deputy Corbyn reverted to his fundamental beliefs.

Deputy Smith was now in a quandary as he also opposed his president's view but in no way wanted to support Corbyn.

Deputy Balls waited to see how Deputy Smith would react and in the meantime focused on his tango. Deputy Greening, who had previously supported the March decision but then, on joining ESC, had strongly supported President May, could see that the tide was moving against the president and, emboldened by Sir Humphrey's intervention, switched sides.

President May was blind to most of these events and continued to believe she had the full support of her committee. She did, however, call on Sir Arnold to investigate Sir Humphrey's blocking action. Opaqueness within the civil service does not let even the most imaginative ponder what was said or what advice given.

Deputy Corbyn now mobilised his Momentum lobby group to push for an early statement from President May and 'let slip' that all was not well in ESC. He also revealed the clash of personalities and that President May had a major plan to deviate even further from the March decision than most expected.

On the eve of the statement being given, the ESC rebels called an emergency vote. President May lost her mandate and was left high and dry up a creek without a paddle. Sir Arnold had a word in the ear of the big political boss man, who had a word with President May. Sir Humphrey smiled and Deputy Balls waltzed in asking, 'what's the news?'. Deputy Corbyn went up five per cent in the polls and Momentum made sure everyone knew this. Deputy Smith cursed for helping his rival. Deputy Greening felt morally right.

Imagine that the above was real and not just my fevered imagination running overtime.

How can any political system work where groups of unaligned and/or possibly opposing politicians are charged to work together for the common good, when their views of good can be diametrically opposed?

Perhaps the committee president should be given the mandate and only pick other non-voting deputies to share the workload? Or pressure could be taken off the whole structure by limiting what each Assembly will look at, given the four years' duration and small number of deputies.

If we let them continually look for trouble they will find it everywhere. And as Groucho Marx (or was it Ernest Benn?) once said, politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.