GET this: ministers are obsessed with secrecy and hoarding power, States sittings are a boring nightmare of repetition, stupid questions and pointless debates on the whims of individual Members, and five years of the ministerial system has created an atmosphere of antagonism and suspicion within the States Chamber.

In what must be the least shocking report ever to tumble out of a brown envelope, a sub-group of the States reform committee has reached the less-than-startling conclusion that our politics is a bit rubbish.

The group – technically called the States Business Organisation sub- group but more accurately described as the State the Bleeding Obvious committee – says that the system is so far gone that tinkering around the edges won’t help, and that a full in-depth review of Jersey’s political systems is required.

And so it begins. Ministers or committees? One Chamber or two? Political parties or independents? Senators or Constables? Three- or four-year terms? Red seats or green?

Political reform is one of those flat-out-politics-geek issues that no one other than politicians or wannabe politicians ever really engages with. And it’s worth noting at this point that the report proposed either an in-depth review, or a ‘short’ one taking a mere 18 months.

Yep, there’s nothing that politicians like to spend a good stretch of time talking about more than their favourite subject: themselves.

And while the criticisms of ministerial government offered in the State the Bleeding Obvious report are fair and accurate, it’s also worth noting that there are good points to it.

The first is that it’s much, much quicker than the old committee system under which it could take literally months for two separate committees to even communicate with each other.

The second, and more important, is that it has allowed serious and competent politicians with genuine expertise in a subject – like Environment Minister Freddie Cohen, Social Security Minister Ian Gorst and Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand, for example – to put that competence and expertise to work in a way that has a real and immediate impact on the Island. And the unavoidable flipside of that logic is that ministerial government removes power and influence from those who aren’t serious, who aren’t competent and who do not have that expertise.

This is the elephant in the room that everyone can see, and that no one wants to talk about, and it’s something that will never, never come out of any review of Jersey’s political system, no matter how long they take on it.

Here it is: a lot of our politicians aren’t very good. This is not a joke, and it’s not a left/right thing. If you’ve watched or listened to them, you know. A lot of ministers don’t or won’t answer questions, a lot of non-ministers spend their days grandstanding and trying to score points, and far too many from both sides would rather bitch and moan at each other than sort things out.

And here’s the kicker: there is nothing wrong with Jersey’s politics, the make-up of the States or ministerial government that wouldn’t be fixed, at a stroke, by having better politicians.

This is not to say that a lot of them are corrupt, or lazy, or uncaring, or out for themselves. They’re really not. They’re out to make the Island a better place, but some of them are just no good at it.

So, what’s the answer? I can’t pretend to have come up with this myself, but the bloke who did probably wouldn’t thank me for naming him. It’s simple, it doesn’t cost anything, and it would work straight away.

And while the State the Bleeding Obvious committee say that it would take 18 months to do a ‘short’ review, our mysterious benefactor’s answer to the question of what to with States Members can be summed up in six words: ‘Halve the number, double the pay.’

Aside from giving me something to giggle about, getting rid of half of the States Members at once would have the effect of concentrating the minds of the remainder.

It might not get rid of all of the dross, but voters aren’t thick – most of the time they have a pretty good notion of who’s useless and who isn’t.

And the way that States Members vote in a debate on the proposal would give you a fairly good idea of which States Members rate themselves highly, and which know, deep down, that they’re out of their depth.