Narrow win gives P&R no mandate – Trott
The deputy considered to be the front-runner to take over as Policy & Resources president has said it would be ‘a nightmare scenario’ for the current senior committee if it survives this week with the support of less than half of the Assembly.
A vote of no confidence in P&R is thought to be on a knife edge and could even turn on the absence, illness or abstentions of a small number of members.
Some deputies believe the outcome could be a tied vote, which would keep P&R in office.
‘That would be a pyrrhic victory. If I was in that position, I would not feel able to continue,’ said Deputy Lyndon Trott.
‘If they survive by the skin of their teeth and that is because of absentees or sickness then that is no mandate at all.
Listen to a preview of this week's meeting with Simon De La Rue and Matt Fallaize
‘I would rather see them keep their seats, say, 23-17, or lose 23-17, so there is a clear view expressed by the Assembly. If they survive effectively only by their own votes, they won’t be happy with that, and who could blame them.’
Deputy Trott is one of four States members understood to be likely to stand in an election for the P&R presidency if Deputy Peter Ferbrache and his committee is removed by the Assembly this week. The others are Charles Parkinson, Rob Prow and Peter Roffey.
He said yesterday’s behind-closed-doors meeting with P&R, which was attended by more than 30 deputies, had some value and encouraged frank exchanges about the current leadership of the States.
‘There was a sense this morning that it can’t go on like this and that we have to work more collaboratively.
‘Somebody made the comment that it was the largest number of States members they had seen in a meeting this term outside of the Assembly in the Royal Court.
‘There has to be some value in that.
‘Where there was criticism, and it gathered some momentum, was about false pretences. We thought we were coming here to learn something confidential, but we didn’t learn anything confidential.’
Deputy Ferbrache said the meeting had been constructive.
‘The point was to get people to talk to each other,’ he said.
‘Members will vote how they wish on the motion of no confidence.
‘This wasn’t about trying to change their minds. I made that very clear.’
