WHAT to make of the latest development in the incinerator saga? Last month the States did the most abrupt U-turn in their history.

Now they appear to be endlessly going around a roundabout, uncertain which exit to select.

So is the Spruce requete a brave attempt to correct a spontaneous and inexplicable piece of bad government?

Or is it the stubborn response of a frustrated deputy who was surprised to find himself on the losing side and is unwilling to embrace a new zeitgeist?

Well, the first thing to say is that, however you view his requete, he and his fellow petitioners certainly have some courage. They must have known that they would reap a whirlwind of criticism from the very articulate and well-organised anti-Suez campaign.

There are probably very few votes to be gained by their actions but a whole heap to lose. So it’s safe to conclude that they are very sincere in believing their desperate attempt at securing a second U-turn is in the best interest of the island.

The thrust of their argument is that democracy has to be seen to be served. With Suez booted out by one vote and several members advised they shouldn’t vote for technical reasons, the suspicion remains that the majority of deputies actually wanted to continue with the project.

Is it satisfactory for a minority of the States, on the strength of an amendment with no supporting report, to overturn a decision made by a clear majority and on the basis of a well-researched policy letter?

I guess the answer depends on what outcome people want to see. The odd thing is that the States has a rule designed to protect against exactly these circumstances. To ensure decisions crucial to the island can’t be taken on the hoof, any amendment which goes further than the substantive proposition can be required to have two-thirds of members wanting it debated. That rule has often been abused to stymie quite harmless debate, but when exactly the circumstances for which it was devised arose, no one sought to invoke it.

Whatever – the fact remains that the States did decide, quite validly, within the rules of procedure, to reject Suez 10 days ago. Can it possibly be right to do yet another about-face, or would that lose the States their last vestiges of credibility?

My views on the decision to throw out years of careful research and go back to the drawing board are on record. I may be out of step with many, but I am convinced that we have embarked on a dangerously whimsical policy based on wishful thinking and castles in the sky. I really hope I am wrong. I would love it to succeed, but I am a realist. Our consumer society won’t disappear overnight and large amounts of residual waste will have to be dealt with. Not everything can be recycled and even when it can that isn’t always the best environmental option – particularly on an island.

I still believe that Suez is the least-bad option available at the moment. Just binning it on the basis that our waste will magically go away is like the politics of an Ambridge parish council led by Linda Snell.

So, logically, I should want another U-turn, but I’m not so sure.

If the States flip-flops yet again to re-embrace Suez then I’m sure thousands will feel a sort of poisonous distrust of it which would be far more acute than if it had simply stuck with the project last month.

Perhaps the only way to ensure the community can come together again is to allow those who brought Suez down to prove they can deliver an acceptable alternative.

Let Deputy Lowe and her supporters turn their rhetoric into reality. Let them devise the devilishly difficult detail of this alternative strategy. Let the magnificent 21 transform the island, leading by example, buying all their clothes at Oxfam and the Sally Army. Let them give up their BMWs, Mercedes and 4X4s. No more trappings of consumerism, like dishwashers or tumble driers, for them. Instead we’ll see them all regularly scavenging at Longue Hougue.

Even with such inspired leadership, I doubt they could persuade enough islanders to follow suit for it to work.

If they can, then hats off.

If not, then they’ll have cost us very many millions and precious landfill space, but we’ll know where we stand.

There’s no good way forward from here.