From Brendan McDonald.
THERE have been two incidents in Deputy Daniel Wimberley’s short political life that I am sure he will always regret, because they contributed partly to the defeat of his incinerator rescindment motion.
Firstly, there was the burning of the banknote with Her Majesty’s image on it — and secondly, his unexplained absence at the beginning of the debate for which he got well and truly reprimanded by the Deputy Bailiff.
Burning the banknote was just silly, ill-conceived and ill-advised, and it proved nothing. The second incident could be put down to inexperience simply because it was not intentional.
It was a brave effort, however, to bring such an important motion so early in his career in the States, and despite what many of his critics claimed, he did not have an alternative and had the facts and figures to back up his claims.
He made the cardinal error of talking too long because, although he had done his homework, a lot of the Members had forgotten what he said in the first hour of his three-hour speech.
Some of the speeches in defence of the existing signed document were, to say the least, unconvincing. Senator Cohen, for instance, was so preoccupied with the beauty of design of the new incinerator and the CV of its designer (world-class, of course) that he had forgotten what the debate was about — the cost and effect of the Island’s new monster.
Both those who voted against the rescindment and those who voted for it probably think that they have done the right thing, but the truth is that no one will really know anything until it is up and running.
We learned a lot about our States Members in this debate. Some were not brave enough to have an opinion, and others were hoping that the incinerator would not end up in their lovely cosy country parishes. Depu-ty Wimberley showed his courage in bringing his motion, but, as I’ve said before, he will regret the two incidents that contributed to his downfall.
114 Don Farm,
St Brelade.
