TRIBAL HELM is the rather frightening name of the consultants reviewing States’ spending. In a couple of months, we’ll see if their detailed findings are equally scary.

Certainly it’s no surprise they’ve found lots of areas for potential savings – presumably T&R would have been disappointed if their expensive experts had failed to do so.

Any big organisation can always become more efficient, particularly coming off the back of a period of strong income growth.

Tribal Helm suggests the States has additional problems – a culture of decentralisation, duplication and even one department impeding the work of another.

If that can be corrected, then ‘hallelujah’.

With goodwill and cooperation, it shouldn’t take Stalinist central controls to achieve.

Everybody will also welcome an onslaught on those areas of government which have become flabby during the good years – no one more so than those in States employment who are stretched to the limit providing the services we all want.

There are many of these people, working at all levels, and they get very frustrated seeing others enjoying life in the comfort zone.

So far, so good, but don’t think making big governmental savings is going to be painless.

Following the release of the initial report, every Guernseyman and his dog is wagging his head sagely and saying, ‘I could have told you so’.

Just wait until the detail comes out and the recommendations to scale back on ‘gold-plated services’ affect their sacred cows.

True, no one will protest in the streets about changes in procurement procedures or human resources.

It’s when the consultants start suggesting cuts in bus subsidies, primary school places, support to farmers, payments to private schools and even a major reduction in public toilets (don’t titter, it’s being seriously considered) that we can expect to see 298 protest groups in full voice.

If we are serious about seeing a big reduction in States spending rather than increased taxes and charges, then we need to change the way we judge our government’s successes and failures.

In my time as a deputy I was relentlessly lobbied over what more the States should be doing, but very rarely over how they should do the same, or even less, more cost-effectively.

Indeed, any move to streamline services, focus on the real area of need and cut out wastage usually resulted in public and press outrage.

Politicians are, by and large, thin-skinned, superficial characters who put 90% of their effort into remaining popular and avoiding public upset.

So the pressures they come under from their electorate help set their personal agendas.

If the constant call is for ‘more’, then that is just what they will try to deliver.

Being positive, I would like to suggest two more areas for saving, bringing the number to a round 300.

Firstly, stop sending States members around the world to attend CPA conferences.

Yes, we do need to increase our international profile in meaningful forums, but these irrelevant conferences with their anodyne, set-piece debates are mere junkets. Delegates often argue that the experience improves their understanding of issues through sharing ideas with those facing similar problems. Personally, I’ve never found them one whit more insightful on their return.

Lastly, it’s time States departments stopped spending hundreds of thousands of pounds a year on in-house PR officers. The number of these seems to be growing monthly but with no commensurate improvement in government communication.

Call me old fashioned, but I feel that communicating departmental policy to the public through the media is one of the prime responsibilities of any ‘minister’.

This is especially true when he/she has the uncomfortable task of conveying bad news.

Instead it often seems that the primary job of these spin doctors is to intervene and protect their political masters from having to answer difficult questions directly.

A classic case was the recent press release on population growth/housing licences. A spun interpretation of the facts was released with a footnote saying no further comment would be forthcoming.

No opportunity to interview deputies Flouquet or Jones, who are responsible for these areas of policy.

These same deputies, before gaining positions of power, constantly called for more ‘openness and transparency’ in government.

Now they simply hide behind their PR men.

To be fair, this is not typical of Deputy Jones’s usual street-fighting style but with Deputy Flouquet it is becoming a pattern – and he’s not the only one.

Bad news? ‘No comment.’