OUR disclosures yesterday of the full significance of the States’ endorsement of the entire fundamental spending review package, including the delegation of cabinet-style authority to the Policy Council and a group of senior civil servants, has drawn a mixed reaction.

Understandably, that ranged from warm support for the move towards more central control of government to viewing it as the end of Guernsey-style consensus.

One which surprised us, however, was a senior private sector leader who responded: ‘This is not a bloodless coup… why not praise the States for making one of the most important decisions they will likely face in their four-year term?’

It is a valid question – why not give due credit for a courageous decision that materially weakens the influence of ministers and their boards?

The reason (or at least the suspicion) is that a number of members were not aware of the consequences of their vote. In fairness to them, the Billet d’Etat report was written with extreme precision – ‘carefully constructed’ as the chief minister put it – and questions on the wording were not being taken until after the States decision. It had to be read in a certain way for the message to be clear.

But whether members whole-heartedly embraced radical change (and if they did, this newspaper offers unreserved congratulations to them) or just felt they were generally supporting the Tribal report for making economies, is it really the end of consensus government as we know it?

In our view not, but it may lead to a reshaping of members’ roles.

By approving Billet d’Etat XXV, deputies have authorised the execution of 107 opportunities to save money, enforce a culture shift in the public sector towards spending, value for money and civil service performance and that was entirely consensual. What is different this time is that making that happen has been devolved away from the States Assembly to its professional staff.

However, the States as a whole has to agree with what’s being done in its name or else it can simply amend them.

Perhaps the biggest change is that instead of being involved in taking all the decisions, members now have to scrutinise whether they are the right ones.