Change is needed – but to what end?

If the ideal is consistent and imaginative decision-making, clearly communicated, evidence-based and swiftly implemented there have been plenty of examples where it has fallen down.

An argument can be made for it being the elected representatives, not the system, that is at fault. The gulf between two distinct groups of deputies that opened up early on during the election of the president of Policy & Resources has only widened.

But it is more than that. This Assembly has failed to address key topics such as air and sea links with anything like the focus and energy required. Its prioritisation of projects and spending in all areas has been lamentable and it is far from clear who should be doing what. And there is still evidence of committees caring only for their own mandate and budget.

But is it so bad that the whole system needs to be ripped up and rethought?

A requete led by senior States member Heidi Soulsby says not. For her there is much that is good about the current system. It needs a refresh, not a revolution.

There is much to be said for an evolutionary approach. Previous attempts at wholesale reinvention have had mixed success.

The first – the Harwood report – was ripped apart by amendments in the States, creating a Frankenstein’s monster of a hybrid system.

The second escaped that fate but, although cohesive on paper, its seams are coming apart under the strain of day-to-day government.

Learning the lessons of this four-year term – and a bit of next – gives the opportunity to fix what is broken without smashing the pot.

The difficulty will be in identifying what has gone wrong. The requete puts forward its own suggestions – including the creation of three new committees – but it is likely that each deputy will add to that their pet project.

The danger is that so many ideas for change will be introduced that the new committee tasked with reshaping the model will soon be wishing they had started from scratch.