Confident in your vote? Let us know
IS IT outrageous or incredulous to believe that States members drew to the end of a complex, four-day, debate on the government’s funding and investment plan, one that was guillotined to a rapid conclusion at the end of another long Friday, without knowing exactly what they had approved and what they had rejected?
Some members might have been leaning on Heidi Soulsby’s impressive flow chart that she had prepared to work out, once Deputy Peter Roffey had split up P&R’s favoured ‘scenarios’, exactly what led to what.
Although Deputy Roffey said it was ‘incredibly simple’, an explanation from P&R, published last week, takes some chewing over to understand the depth of the proposals approved and rejected.
But now we have an issue where some members are concerned that other members – seemingly unknown and certainly unnamed – might not have understood where they were, and so pressed wrong buttons at the wrong time. So is there a case to revisit certain votes?
The argument seems fatuous and bends credibility for those paid £800 a week primarily to sit in the debating chamber and make good decisions on behalf of the electorate.
If deputies are not fools, and this narrative is false, then they should stand up for themselves, have the record corrected – and get on with making better decisions.