To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
I really feel for those who have to vote on Plémont
Share this:
No, the reason I so far haven’t referred to it is because, quite simply,
I don’t have a straightforward, easily justifiable opinion on it.
Plémont and the question of whether the States should buy it to protect it and return it to nature, via the National Trust, are for many people a Marmite issue – you either love the idea or you hate it.
It’s the same with keeping the Constables in the States – for many it is a clear-cut ‘yes or no and here’s my reason why’.
But I’ll let you in on a little secret: I don’t love or hate Marmite. Instead, I kind of like it, sometimes, when I’m in the mood and depending on what it’s with. Marmite-covered cashew nuts, for example, are amazing. But Marmite on toast first thing in the morning when you have just brushed your teeth? No thanks.
It’s the same with Plémont and it’s the same with the Constables.
So, here’s my point: if I were a States Member, and thus charged with voting in this week’s Plémont debate, I’d be in a bit of a sticky (and not from the Marmite) situation.
Despite having followed the arguments, being fully aware of the pros and cons and wracking my brain for a simple yes or no, I can’t even decide how I feel about the issue for this column, let alone to actually vote on it and potentially sway the result one way or another, given how close it is going to be.
Because on the one hand the idea of the States buying Plémont is a great one. The government has the money (squirrelled away in various pots), it has the people who can look after the site in the National Trust for Jersey, and when Islanders look back in a hundred years or more and admire the unspoilt headland, how wonderful will it be to know that our generation did that?
But then again, spending millions of pounds acquiring a piece of land that States Members have voted not to buy in the past, and which belongs to someone else who has been given permission to build on it already, and who may have to be forced to give it up, is ridiculous.
Add to that the fact that we are currently in one of the worst economic downturns for a long time, that the States have been ruthlessly cutting services and funding in a bid to save millions, and imposing pay freezes on public sector workers, and the idea becomes almost unjustifiable.
Abstaining from the vote should, unless you have a conflict of interest either way, not really be an option, because the States Members are elected – and paid quite a bit of money – to make decisions.
So, what would I do? Well, thankfully I don’t have to decide (yes, it’s a cop-out, I know), I don’t have to vote and what I think won’t make any difference.
I’ll be interested in the outcome either way (the decision will, after all, shape much debate and perhaps even actions during the next few months, if not years). But, most of all – and this is something I don’t often say – I’ll be sparing a thought for our dear politicians in what is sure to be, for some at least, a tough vote to cast.
LESS tough last week were two decisions in the States which, while they won’t change lives, they will certainly make the cost of day-to-day living slightly lower for many Islanders.
The first was the successful challenge by Deputy Gerard Baudains to the proposed 3p per litre increase on petrol in the 2013 Budget. As a result, the cost of petrol (which has gone up something ridiculous like 28 per cent in the past four years) will be a tad more bearable for drivers.
The second was a successful proposition from Deputy Geoff Southern to increase the old-age pension by 1.4 per cent so it has gone up in line with inflation – something which hasn’t happened for the past few years. The rise, which will be backdated for pensioners to October, equates to an extra £2.59 a week.
Neither of these moves is going to change the world; they are small, almost unnoticeable changes. But that doesn’t mean that they aren’t important, because they are steps in the right direction and they send an important message to Islanders, and set important precedents.
The two States Members who brought them to the House must therefore be commended.
Deputies Baudains and Southern don’t always get it right and have come in for some stick in the past, from myself included. But with these two propositions they really did get it right, as did those who backed them.
Related