‘Untold damage’ if incinerator gets back in
Tuesday 9th March 2010, 11:30AM GMT.
AN ATTEMPT to overturn the decision to scrap the incinerator could do ‘untold damage’ to the credibility of the States, according to one campaigner.
Public Services Department member Deputy Tony Spruce has tabled a motion calling for the £93.5m. Suez proposal to be voted on again. He said the vote in last month’s meeting, which saw the plans thrown out by a majority of just one, was undemocratic because members of the Environment Department abstained following legal advice.
However, Rupert Dorey (pictured) said he deplored the decision and thought it could damage Guernsey’s political reputation.
‘While the Suez proposal was just a commercial contract, the Spruce requete could undermine the whole basis of good government.’
In their meeting yesterday, the Policy Council decided the requete would be discussed at the March States meeting. If the States supported the motion it would mean the Suez proposals would go ahead as originally planned.
Mr Dorey is the spokesman for a consortium of ‘key local residents’ who committed to using their own money to fight the Suez proposals in the courts. He said they would carry on that campaign if the plans were reinstated.
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. See below for subscription details.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
If States goes back on Suez decision then island should demand a referendum, effectively a vote of no confidence in the bad losers like Deputy Spruce. You lost, get over it. PSD should have presented States with options, not just burn it and to hang with what the vast majority think.
Report abuse
Main forum debate is going on at:
http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2010/03/08/requete-puts-suez-burner-back-on-agenda/
That’s why there is not much under this heading
They say we get the Government we deserve, no one deserves Tony Spruce and group
Report abuse
I agree with Rupert Dorey, this will quickly descend into a fiasco. Quite honestly, whatever one might think of the Suez idea, with such indecision abounding one could hardly blame the company if they took the compensation money and ran, irrespective of the results of this requete. What business wants a client who is constantly flip-flopping – we’ll buy, we won’t, we’ll buy, we won’t. Of course in some people’s eyes that’s not such a bad idea, but the principle is there for future contracts. Major contractors will think twice before having the States of Guernsey as a customer. One u-turn is quite enough – move on please!
On a slightly tongue in cheek note: since re-running votes seems all the rage at the moment, perhaps we could have a re-run of the 2008 election? There are a number of Deputies who may well find themselves out of a job!
Report abuse
Sara not a referendum a general election
Report abuse
If Spruce gets the Suez deal a second chance should the electors of the Vale receive a second chance on whether they want him as their deputy!!!
As he is so concerned and worried with majorities of those eligible to vote, he should remember, as should all of his requete co signatories,that of the 5651 eligible voters in the Vale, only a minority of 2099 voted for Spruce.
The same minority vote applies to all other six of the gang of seven.
Report abuse
Why wait?
Give him a vote of no confidence; and give him no information, refuse to attend or allow him to hold meetings. and send him to Coventry.
Teach him and others that it’s the people who rule the roost not some warbling cock bird.
Report abuse
If they vote again and this time pass it, can we have a best of three with musical chairs as to who is allowed to vote? I like watching a good British farce as much as the next person, but not in government please.
The incinerator got rejected for the right reasons and those reasons have not changed.
In the future perhaps the States won’t design the tender process around a single supplier in the first place. Unless States members have a vested interest of course…
Report abuse