DAN'S THE MAN TO HANDLE RUBBISH

[ole razzy]

Can you explain in more detail Xenth?

[TAV]

They,ve all got their guaranteed salaries, (Doubled up with expenses). Dont hold your breath waiting for any of them to come back online explaining how they are working on their election promises.

They are all sitting in the expensive seats now. They cant possibly have the same views that they had from their soap-boxes.

Pomme De Terre & Fritz

Apologies for not returning to the forum more recently however, I was keeping the one election promise that I did well and truly make and that was to ensure that I helped the parishioners. 

In order to clarify what I said in my manifesto at election time - it was that I did not agree with the size of the incinerator that was being built and the amount that was being spent was extortionate.  I do not pretend to know everything about incineration and recycling but I do have the utmost respect for Deputy Wimberley and all his hard work that he put into his proposition he is a very intelligent man and I hope to learn more about environmental issues from him.  Why did I not vote for the proposition? purely because it was after the contract had been signed and it was a very high risk situation to be delving into.  It was a very difficult debate but if it had been before the contract had been signed then my vote would have more than likely gone the other way!

Tracey Vallois

[Pomme de terre]

Hi Tracey,

Thanks for responding. I took issue with you in particular for the following reason.

The size, cost, location and appearance of the incinerator were already agreed by the States in summer 2008. You stood for election in autumn 2008 and were one of the only candidates to make a public statement about the incinerator in your manifesto. I remember reading your manifesto and thinking to myself "well, this lady might be against it, but there is bugger all she can actually do about it. The contract has been signed". Your statement, at the time, seemed naive to me.

Maybe it was just the wording of it but, in a manifesto, I expect to read about the things that you actually have a chance of achieving. It's fine "not agreeing" with the size and cost, that's your opinion and I share it. But as a manifesto statement, it was pretty pointless. At the time you made that statement, you had a snowball's chance in hell of doing anything about it. But then you got that chance...

Interesting?? Did she have the deciding vote on this? as it seems from your posting its completely her fault? I am going to have a look at the vote on this?

Never mind just seen the vote and think your post is proposterous!!

Xenth: don't worry, I consider you popping up out of the blue and calling no specific part of my post "preposterous" to be pretty preposterous itself.

At no point did I suggest that it's completely her fault, merely that she had taken an interesting public position.

Tracey is now paid out of our taxes and I have a legitimate right to politely question her change of mind. She has responded, I respect her right to change her mind, but I don't agree with the way she voted in the end. Please tell me what part of that is preposterous?

I hope your post isn't just a one off random drive-by, but next time, try actually quoting me.

[Pomme de terre]

www.vote.je is still offline by the way. No chance of checking candidate manifestos, even though taxpayers paid for the design and hosting of that website and spent a large sum of money marketing it via the States Communications Unit, using both JEP advertising and flyers through the post.

[TAV]

Pomme De Terre

I completely respect your opinion and probably agree that the mention of the incinerator was pointless to be put in my manifesto however, it was a minor part of my manifesto and it was merely mentioned because it was regularly asked of me when talking to people.  I note your point and will ensure that should I stand again that my manifesto will be a clear and concise mention of policies that I do and do not agree with. 

Yourself and every other person in the Island has a right to question my voting and the work that I do because as you say I am being paid by the taxpayer and I am more than willing to talk to anyone that wants to know.  I will attempt to come back on once a month to update should you have any further questions.  Also, I will put your concern with regards to www.vote.je to the communications unit and see if there is a possibility of putting it back online because it is only right that people can see the manifestos of those in office for the next three years so you are able to question the records.

Regards

Tracey

[Res Nullius]

Apologies for not returning to the forum more recently however, I was keeping the one election promise that I did well and truly make and that was to ensure that I helped the parishioners. 

Tracey Vallois

I can assure you that Tracey has been very active in that respect.

[rogueelement]

Has she? what are you trying to imply.
A victory for commonsense , in that a newbie States Member saw through the obfuscation of the dilettante, nouveau arrivest left , green , some day my prince will come , Cinderella politicians who know a lot but understand little.This is Jersey not the USA ! we cannot afford to make big statements, get with the program , if someone tries something first , and it works , maybe 10 years down the line we can afford a second hand one. What we cannot currently afford  is to be at the front line of everything, the best planning dept. ever, the finest communications,Green Policies, Global Warming Policies, Thermo dynamic Policies, health and safety, carbon futures. I know everybody these days needs immediate gratification but it is not possible on a budget, especially a budget which may fall somewhere short in the near future. So what we NEED as opposed to what we WANT is for the needs of the vast majority of people who VOTE to be satisfied. Unfortunately we do not even get that so would the tiny splintered groups of  disenfranchised activists please do us all a favour and lobby their nearest Chinese Restaurant to see if they can persuade China to adopt their beloved policies with a population of billions as opposed to ours which is possibly less than 100,000?

[Fritz]

Well said Spartacus.


ps. Low energy light bulbs are crap, you have to switch all your lights on in the morning before going to work if you want to be able to see when you get in at night.

[Xenth]

Hi Tracey,

Thanks for responding. I took issue with you in particular for the following reason.

The size, cost, location and appearance of the incinerator were already agreed by the States in summer 2008. You stood for election in autumn 2008 and were one of the only candidates to make a public statement about the incinerator in your manifesto. I remember reading your manifesto and thinking to myself "well, this lady might be against it, but there is bugger all she can actually do about it. The contract has been signed". Your statement, at the time, seemed naive to me.

Maybe it was just the wording of it but, in a manifesto, I expect to read about the things that you actually have a chance of achieving. It's fine "not agreeing" with the size and cost, that's your opinion and I share it. But as a manifesto statement, it was pretty pointless. At the time you made that statement, you had a snowball's chance in hell of doing anything about it. But then you got that chance...

Xenth: don't worry, I consider you popping up out of the blue and calling no specific part of my post "preposterous" to be pretty preposterous itself.

At no point did I suggest that it's completely her fault, merely that she had taken an interesting public position.

Tracey is now paid out of our taxes and I have a legitimate right to politely question her change of mind. She has responded, I respect her right to change her mind, but I don't agree with the way she voted in the end. Please tell me what part of that is preposterous?

I hope your post isn't just a one off random drive-by, but next time, try actually quoting me.

Ok then "Tracey is now paid out of our taxes" and so are the other 34 members who voted so please tell me why question one person and not the other 34? As part of her constituent i know that she has been working hard for her district. Can i ask what district you live in? the fact is the incinerator as you say "The contract has been signed" and so there is little anyone could do with ut incurring huge costs to the island. While like you i detest the incinerator and the reports i have seen and heard its the failing of previous states members and those who voted them in. It seemed to me that your original post picked out one particular Deputy rather than the other 34 indicating that in some way she was a catalyst?

[Dylan]

Has she? what are you trying to imply.
A victory for commonsense , in that a newbie States Member saw through the obfuscation of the dilettante, nouveau arrivest left , green , some day my prince will come , Cinderella politicians who know a lot but understand little.This is Jersey not the USA ! we cannot afford to make big statements, get with the program , if someone tries something first , and it works , maybe 10 years down the line we can afford a second hand one. What we cannot currently afford  is to be at the front line of everything, the best planning dept. ever, the finest communications,Green Policies, Global Warming Policies, Thermo dynamic Policies, health and safety, carbon futures. I know everybody these days needs immediate gratification but it is not possible on a budget, especially a budget which may fall somewhere short in the near future. So what we NEED as opposed to what we WANT is for the needs of the vast majority of people who VOTE to be satisfied. Unfortunately we do not even get that so would the tiny splintered groups of  disenfranchised activists please do us all a favour and lobby their nearest Chinese Restaurant to see if they can persuade China to adopt their beloved policies with a population of billions as opposed to ours which is possibly less than 100,000?

If we can't afford to make big statements then why are you making one?

[rogueelement]

It,s only words and words are all I have to take your breath away.

BeeGees circa 1969.

[Dylan]

Help more camp!!!

[Pomme de terre]

Ok then "Tracey is now paid out of our taxes" and so are the other 34 members who voted so please tell me why question one person and not the other 34? As part of her constituent i know that she has been working hard for her district. Can i ask what district you live in? the fact is the incinerator as you say "The contract has been signed" and so there is little anyone could do with ut incurring huge costs to the island. While like you i detest the incinerator and the reports i have seen and heard its the failing of previous states members and those who voted them in. It seemed to me that your original post picked out one particular Deputy rather than the other 34 indicating that in some way she was a catalyst?

Xenth, look at the rescindment vote - http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/hansard/49186-2134-932009.htm#_Toc224367180

If you had asked me before the vote how it would go, I could have virtually predicted it, to the man or woman:

FOR RESCINDMENT: Syvret, Breckon, Crowcroft, Duhamel, Hill, Le Hérissier, Martin, Southern, Le Claire, Pitman S, Tadier, Wimberley, Pitman T, Higgins, Green, De Sousa, Maçon 

AGAINST RESCINDMENT:  Le Sueur, Routier, Ozouf, Le Main, Shenton, Cohen, Perchard, Ferguson, Maclean, Le Marquand, Constables of St. Ouen, Trinity, Grouville, St. Brelade, St. Martin, St. John, St. Saviour, St. Clement, St. Peter, St. Lawrence, St. Mary, Fox, Reed, Labey, Hilton, Le Fondré, Pryke, Power, Lewis, Gorst, Rondel, Jeune, Dupré, Noel, Vallois

It's basically establishment versus non-establishment, a reflection of the entrenched positions that we all know to exist.

The one that sticks out - like a sore thumb - is Tracey. The other 34 are completely predictable and were no surprise whatsoever, so I saw no reason to pass comment on them. I saw Tracey's vote, and saw someone who had changed her mind because of the debate. It interested me, so I politely raised it on this forum.

I've got to say, you've been pretty keen to jump down my throat with regard to a normal, legitimate question. Why are you so eager to jump to her defence and have a pop at me, when I haven't treated her unfairly?  What's up with that?

For the record, I am a St Helier voter. My principal objection to the incinerator is its size and appearance, and the fact that the 2008 decision was rushed through in the dying days of the last COM, by a retiring CM and a doomed Transport Minister. The former had no intention of hanging round to be held responsible for how it looks, the latter did not have a hope of hanging round to be held responsible for how it looks. Politics at its worst that was.

[Pomme de terre]

Pomme De Terre

I completely respect your opinion and probably agree that the mention of the incinerator was pointless to be put in my manifesto however, it was a minor part of my manifesto and it was merely mentioned because it was regularly asked of me when talking to people.  I note your point and will ensure that should I stand again that my manifesto will be a clear and concise mention of policies that I do and do not agree with. 

Yourself and every other person in the Island has a right to question my voting and the work that I do because as you say I am being paid by the taxpayer and I am more than willing to talk to anyone that wants to know.  I will attempt to come back on once a month to update should you have any further questions.  Also, I will put your concern with regards to www.vote.je to the communications unit and see if there is a possibility of putting it back online because it is only right that people can see the manifestos of those in office for the next three years so you are able to question the records.

Regards

Tracey

Hi Tracey, I am genuinely grateful for your offer of looking into why manifestos are no longer available, when we pay a great deal to promote elections. I suspect you may get fobbed off, but let's wait and see eh?

[Xenth]

Xenth, look at the rescindment vote - http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/hansard/49186-2134-932009.htm#_Toc224367180

If you had asked me before the vote how it would go, I could have virtually predicted it, to the man or woman:

FOR RESCINDMENT: Syvret, Breckon, Crowcroft, Duhamel, Hill, Le Hérissier, Martin, Southern, Le Claire, Pitman S, Tadier, Wimberley, Pitman T, Higgins, Green, De Sousa, Maçon 

AGAINST RESCINDMENT:  Le Sueur, Routier, Ozouf, Le Main, Shenton, Cohen, Perchard, Ferguson, Maclean, Le Marquand, Constables of St. Ouen, Trinity, Grouville, St. Brelade, St. Martin, St. John, St. Saviour, St. Clement, St. Peter, St. Lawrence, St. Mary, Fox, Reed, Labey, Hilton, Le Fondré, Pryke, Power, Lewis, Gorst, Rondel, Jeune, Dupré, Noel, Vallois

It's basically establishment versus non-establishment, a reflection of the entrenched positions that we all know to exist.

The one that sticks out - like a sore thumb - is Tracey. The other 34 are completely predictable and were no surprise whatsoever, so I saw no reason to pass comment on them. I saw Tracey's vote, and saw someone who had changed her mind because of the debate. It interested me, so I politely raised it on this forum.

I've got to say, you've been pretty keen to jump down my throat with regard to a normal, legitimate question. Why are you so eager to jump to her defence and have a pop at me, when I haven't treated her unfairly?  What's up with that?

For the record, I am a St Helier voter. My principal objection to the incinerator is its size and appearance, and the fact that the 2008 decision was rushed through in the dying days of the last COM, by a retiring CM and a doomed Transport Minister. The former had no intention of hanging round to be held responsible for how it looks, the latter did not have a hope of hanging round to be held responsible for how it looks. Politics at its worst that was.

Never a truer word spoken, Politics at its worst, but unfortunately in Jersey this appears to be the standard, this is partly the reason why i take side of Deputy Vallois as i think she is one of the "good" ones with a good head on her shoulders, i had that opinion of her when she knocked at my door and spoke to me regards my concerns and i still have the same opinion now. I think that more people with  attitude in the states we could have a decent government.

At the end of the day she is from what i have seen so far a good deputy in our district and i hope she continues to do a good job, unfortunately a person months in to a new position was never going to overturn what is a done deal, as you say there is an evidently an established group there that far out votes the new radicals, you could see this the day the ministers where picked in the picking of old chums for key positions despite experienced members being overlooked.

Managed to Listen to the GST debate this week and the only one who stood up and made people aware of the constant similarities that Jersey is compared to by states members was Deputy Vallois .. well done for that.