WHETHER this island moves down the road of embracing executive government or something like it will ultimately depend on three things: there being evidence that such a change would be beneficial, States members buying into that view and being satisfied that islanders as a whole wanted such change.

The weekend’s letter from 27 deputies wedded to the current consensual model is a powerful signal that a majority of the Assembly does not want the issue considered for at least another three years.

In the current climate, that looks remarkably blinkered. The reason lies in part in reviews already carried out, including into the role of the States as employer. More recently, Tribal Helm highlighted how individual departments can go against the will of the House and even work against the best interests of the government as a whole.

The man who gave his name to the Harwood report which led to partial reform of the current system has condemned as unfit for purpose the model currently adopted and has expressed an interest in carrying out a further review, particularly so the experiences of Jersey, the Isle of Man and other smaller jurisdictions can be considered.

The other problem faced by those who wish to retain the status quo is that the States’ professional advisers recognise the body of evidence against ‘government by 47′ – i.e. the whole Assembly being involved in every item of policy at every step of the way – cannot be ignored.

Work is already in hand to respond to the critical reports, reinforced by Tribal Helm’s contribution, and the anticipation that the forthcoming review of corporate governance will be similarly critical.

Is doing nothing really an option? Where the 27 deputies might have gained more support is had they examined the concerns already raised and explained why they could safely be ignored (unlikely) or what might be needed to address them without a full executive system.

As things stand, everyone knows there are times that ministers need to act decisively but, as with the tankers and airport, the outcome isn’t a debate on the quality of the decision but whether it should have been taken in the first place.

That’s a level of navel-gazing Guernsey can no longer afford.